# Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. City of Philadelphia

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 24, 2014 · 627 Pa. 470

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969244

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 24, 2014
- **Citations:** 627 Pa. 470; 101 A.3d 79; 124 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 920; 2014 Pa. LEXIS 2510
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Saylor, Stevens, Todd
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969244

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding exhaustion doctrine inapplicable where party presented “purely legal challenge to an agency’s jurisdiction, not a factual one” as was case in Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh
- explaining that SEPTA operates "in over 100 municipalities across southeastern Pennsylvania.”
- noting that the court is not aware of “any statute remotely suggesting the [PFPO] is viable outside of Philadelphia”

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
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 at 95 (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 Cas-tille’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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969244. Public record. Not legal advice.