Legal Opinion · Dissent

SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 7, 2015No. 2445 C.D. 2009Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

President Judge PELLEGRINI.

The question in this case is whether the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is subject to the City of Philadelphia’s (Philadelphia) anti-discrimination ordinances enacted pursuant to a grant of power in the First Class City Home Rule Act1 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).2

In finding that SEPTA is not subject to those ordinances, as instructed on remand, the majority conducts an analysis as set forth in Department of General Services v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Association, 505 Pa. 614, 483 A.2d 448 (1984), to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State PoliceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. City of Pittsburgh v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Hartman v. City of AllentownCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API