SEPTA v. City of Phila., et al, Aplts. (dissenting)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-65-2013][M.O. McCaffery, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellee v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND PHILADELPHIA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 20 EAP 2013 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 4/13/11 at No. 2445 CD 2009, reversing the order entered on 11/10/09 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 3055 July term, 2009 ARGUED: September 11, 2013 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: September 24, 2014 I differ with the majority s approach of remanding to the Commonwealth Court to ascertain legislative intent because, as I read the intermediate court s decision, it already undertook that task. Accord Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, slip op. at 9 (Castille, C.J.); see, e.g., SEPTA v. City of Phila., 20 A.3d 558, 561-62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (concluding that, under SEPTA s enabling legislation, SEPTA is a state agency and that, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission was intended to have exclusive jurisdiction over state agencies like SEPTA). As to substance, I am aligned with Mr. Chief Justice Castille s position and that of the Commonwealth Court majority that the General Assembly did not intend for SEPTA to be subject to suit by the local human relations commissions of the municipalities in which it conducts operations. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. [J-65-2013][M.O. McCaffery, J.] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.