SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, Aplts.
SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, Aplts. - No. 10 EAP 2016
| Pa. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- SEPTA is a Commonwealth-created transit authority that the MTAA classifies as a Commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity.
- Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance (FPO) provides anti-discrimination protections beyond the state PHRA (e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity) and is enforced by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations.
- The PHRA subjects Commonwealth agencies to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) for anti-discrimination enforcement; the question is whether that implies exclusive jurisdiction over Commonwealth agencies.
- This case arises from litigation over whether SEPTA is subject to the Philadelphia Commission’s jurisdiction and the FPO’s anti-discrimination provisions.
- The controlling framework is the two-part test from Commonwealth Dept. of Gen. Servs. v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Ass’n: (1) whether enabling statutes indicate exclusive priority; (2) whether practical consequences favor permitting local jurisdiction.
- The dissent (Justice Donohue) argues sovereign immunity does not bar non-monetary or prohibitory relief proceedings before the Philadelphia Commission and that exempting SEPTA would leave protected classes without remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PHRA/MTAA language grants PHRC exclusive jurisdiction over Commonwealth agencies in anti-discrimination matters | PHRA’s §954 shows the General Assembly intended PHRC jurisdiction over Commonwealth agencies (Plaintiff argues exclusivity) | SEPTA/defendant argues sovereign immunity and MTAA preclude local enforcement against SEPTA | Dissent: PHRA’s directive that Commonwealth agencies be subject to PHRC does not express exclusivity; no textual exclusivity found |
| Whether sovereign immunity prevents Philadelphia Commission from exercising FPO jurisdiction over SEPTA for non-monetary claims | Plaintiff: allowing local jurisdiction is consistent with compliance duties and PHRA waiver for discrimination claims | Defendant: sovereign immunity shields SEPTA from local administrative burdens and litigation costs, so FPO cannot apply | Dissent: Sovereign immunity only bars money damages and mandatory injunctive relief; it does not bar prohibitory injunctions, declaratory relief, investigations, or cease-and-desist orders under the FPO |
| Whether subjecting SEPTA to the FPO would conflict with SEPTA’s core transportation mission | Plaintiff: FPO compliance is consistent with mission to provide nondiscriminatory transportation | Defendant: local enforcement could impose burdens or force mandatory operational changes in conflict with sovereign protections | Dissent: No serious conflict; mandatory operational orders would be barred by sovereign immunity, and prohibitory/non-monetary remedies comport with SEPTA’s mission |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth, Dep’t of Gen. Servs. v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Ass’n, 483 A.2d 448 (Pa. 1984) (two-part test for resolving intergovernmental statutory conflicts)
- Fawber v. Cohen, 532 A.2d 429 (Pa. 1987) (sovereign immunity bars money damages and mandatory injunctive relief)
- Legal Capital, LLC v. Medical Prof. Liab. Catastrophe Loss Fund, 750 A.2d 299 (Pa. 2000) (sovereign immunity does not bar declaratory or prohibitory relief)
- Games Int’l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013) (illustrates dismissal where sovereign immunity applies)
- Mullin v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Trans., 870 A.2d 773 (Pa. 2005) (sovereign immunity principles applied to dismiss certain claims)
- Finn v. Rendell, 990 A.2d 100 (Pa. Commw. 2010) (mandamus to compel ministerial duties not barred by sovereign immunity)
- Kee v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 685 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Commw. 1996) (distinguishes mandatory relief from other remedies under sovereign immunity)
- Chemical Nat. Res., Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela, 215 A.2d 864 (Pa. 1966) (sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar)
- Brimmeier v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 147 A.3d 954 (Pa. Commw. 2016) (sovereign immunity must be pleaded in new matter)
- Mazzie v. Commonwealth, 432 A.2d 985 (Pa. 1981) (distinguishes mandatory versus prohibitory injunctions)