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

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 7, 2015 · 122 A.3d 1163

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9810367

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 7, 2015
- **Citations:** 122 A.3d 1163; 2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 361; 2015 WL 4680775
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Simpson
- **Judges:** Pellegrini, Leadbetter, Jubelirer, Simpson, Leavitt, Brobson, Covey
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9810367

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
I believe this case should be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) for the receipt of evidence and initial fact-finding regarding the consequences of subjecting the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) to the City of Philadelphia’s (City) anti-discrimination ordinance. Because I would vacate and remand, I respectfully dissent.
In this case, the trial court sustained preliminary objections. The pleadings are not closed, and no evidence has been adduced to resolve factual issues raised by the preliminary objections. After subsequent appeals, our Supreme Court clarified the analysis which is to be undertaken in resolving the preliminary objections. That analysis includes a consideration of the consequences of subjecting SEPTA to the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance. See Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. City of Philadelphia, — Pa. -, 101 A.3d 79 (2014).
Questions regarding the consequences cannot be resolved by an examination of the current complaint. See Reproduced Record at 96a. Therefore, I would afford the parties an opportunity to make a record on this issue, and,I would allow the respected trial court to make initial factual determinations.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9810367. Public record. Not legal advice.