[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