Court Opinion

ID: 9708029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:27:50.416379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.336214
License: Public Domain

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, but solely on the *280ground that “the Council’s solicitation of and reliance upon the Corporation Counsel’s opinion ... shows that it declined to enact the proposed bills despite its having been informed that the Act did not cover gender-based insurance rates.” Ante at 279. I also agree with part V of Judge Belson’s opinion. However, I specifically do not agree with the view that “the better interpretation of the Human Rights Act is that it does not encompass actuarial rating practices_” Ante at 276. As the majority recognizes in the very next sentence, there is “some persuasion” in appellants’ argument to the contrary; indeed, I find it quite persuasive. Were it not for what I regard as clear evidence of legislative intent, I would probably vote to reverse.