applies the law to New York residents who violate the law outside the state. Id. § 298-a(2). That isn’t this case either. Here, Schuler alleges that a New York company has committed a discriminatory act in New York, namely adopting, maintaining, and implementing a retirement and promotion policy that disadvantages a class of employees on the basis of age. Thus, nothing in the statute’s plain text removes Schuler’s charge from the NYHRL’s reach or the NYSDHR’s jurisdiction. PwC nonetheless urges us to set the plain terms of the statute aside and follow a string of New York federal district court eases construing the NYHRL to include an in-state impact requirement. See, e.g., Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 1535(KMW), 2007 WL 707068, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.6, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Lucas v. Pathfinder’s Personnel, Inc., No. 01
holding that new york law applies to this matter recognizing the rule and surveying new york law recognizing the time honored practice of applying new york city rates in calculating attorneys fees throughout the southern district of new york including in counties north of the city recognizing a split of authority regarding whether the nyhrl like the new york city human rights law includes an instate impact requirement and holding that it does holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued