SEPTA v. City of Phila., Aplts.

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 24, 2014
• Docket: 20 EAP 2013
• Status: Published

Opinion

[J-65-2013][M.O. – McCaffery, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA : No. 20 EAP 2013 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, : : Appeal from the Order of the Appellee : Commonwealth Court entered on : 4/13/11 at No. 2445 CD 2009, reversing : the order entered on 11/10/09 in the v. : Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia : County, Civil Division at No. 3055 July : term, 2009 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND : PHILADELPHIA COMMISSION ON : HUMAN RELATIONS, : : Appellants : 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