[J-87-2016][M.O. – Mundy, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA : No. 10 EAP 2016
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, :
: Appeal from the Order of the
Appellee : Commonwealth Court at No. 2445 CD
: 2009 filed 8/7/15 reversing and
: remanding the order, dated 11/10/09 in
v. : the Court of Common Pleas,
: Philadelphia County, Civil Division at
: No. 03055, July Term, 2009
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND :
PHILADELPHIA COMMISSION ON :
HUMAN RELATIONS, :
:
Appellants : ARGUED: September 13, 2016
CONCURRING OPINION
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: April 26, 2017
I join the lead opinion, subject to the proviso that I agree with Justice Wecht’s
comments about the relevant analytical framework. In this respect, I also note that
sometimes, the mechanical formulation and heralding of a specific test – such as what
the Court has dubbed the “Ogontz test” – has unintended consequences.
Here, I agree with Justice Wecht, that the “Ogontz test” reflects nothing more
than a conventional application of principles of statutory construction. As such, and
since the discrete, tiered analysis appears to be generating disharmony, I would prefer
to abandon the label at this juncture. In its place, I would simply refer directly to the
Statutory Construction Act.