the ordinary it just says what it will live it's to be liberal and it's not to be it's not to be looked at in parallel with the federal law and then are we left on our own well let me look at the terms of the statute and let me focus on which which what the restoration activities of the city look the city law bearing in mind what the city council said when it passed the restoration act and so let me talk of let me talk about the way the city law is structured because it's different from title seven it's a self contained set of rules and it's not the terms for title seven section eight five zero two a says you the cause of action for damages including punitive damages then under one zero seven thirteen they have this series of provisions that discuss punitive damages in detail and the only state of mind requirements under one  is under section b if the employer satisfies or complies with the commission of human rights programs which don't exist by the way they haven't gotten around to doing so other than that the best be employer can do is mitigate the amount of damage under section b if they comply with those four factors and but that's not a safe harbor that is allows them to tell jury you know we acted in good faith and we did what we could don't hit us with too large a punitive damages award but the jury as was intended to to overall and for does not want to correct but if you think about what the city council was saying in two thousand and five that the federal courts are mistakenly applying the same standards federal standards to city law claims it seems clear that they're including a case of various because why did they mention well they did mention it but if you look at the way titles i mean that's my question why didn't they mention it in mentioning other cases i know wouldn't this be a pretty significant case that you would want to mention it wasn't mentioned all i can say is that the analysis and farias use entirely is consistent with the analysis that the city council rejects in terms of how to interpret the city law that you can't simply assume federal standards applied which is what this court did in various and if you look at the way the statutes are structured the very different statutes that was the whole point of the restoration act these are entirely separate entities again willfulness means a different result in different consequences depending on what act we're talking about and the city council said in two thousand and five  law enforcement what to be applied in the civil rights context and that's a no tolerance vantage point in terms of discrimination if you engage in discrimination not only you can pay damages but you're looking at the very  and is exactly what the city council they and you know the court of appeal said local can impose a greater penalty than state law and you can have a different set of laws depending on the jurisdiction and pending on the legislative intent with respect to  liable for the sperm anation as well as the business park management systems l o l say i point that out because pellets council is relying strongly on the local that the new york city human rights laws have an independent and liberal construction it's not clear what it is the city council was was exactly trying trying to  just would point out that i did cite to a first apartment case a twenty fourteen case salam a versus glorious tried that and in that case they seem to use they they definitely did use a different standard for  almost more than ten years before firing us so the law has not changed well if the city council wanted to create a higher standard for punitive damages couldn't just you know use language in the rely on that statute what about are we going to try to unit of damages for the individuals or only for the business so it all this leads me to think that i agree with your a locked into agreement rebuttal except to emphasize that although the language that we're talking about was inactive in one thousand nine hundred one the city council did not have to rewrite the law in two thousand  if it's going to say that the courts are getting it wrong and that the entire statutory construction needs to be reconsidered in light of what we're trying to accomplish in acting this law which is essentially a no tolerance statute and if you read the statute carefully which i'm sure you have and which me dow