Mazzoni Center and the ACLU of Pennsylvania are requesting permission to file a statement in favor of overturning a recent court ruling exempting SEPTA from adherence to the city’s antibias rules.
In August, the state Commonwealth Court ruled that SEPTA is a state agency, thus it doesn’t have to abide by the city’s LGBT-inclusive antibias rules. Instead, SEPTA must abide by the state’s anti-bias rules, which aren’t LGBT-inclusive, according to the ruling.
SEPTA has about 9,000 workers and more than 600,000 riders daily in Philadelphia, four nearby counties and parts of New Jersey and Delaware.
City officials disagree with Commonwealth Court’s ruling and are asking the state Supreme Court to review it. Mazzoni and the ACLU want permission to file a statement in support of the city’s position.
“Local nondiscrimination ordinances are the only legal protection that LGBT citizens of Pennsylvania have for their jobs, homes and dignity and this will be so until the passage of a state- or nationwide nondiscrimination law,” asserts a Sept. 17 request by Mazzoni and the ACLU.
The request adds: “Pennsylvania’s municipalities have been the leaders in development of evolving standards of fairness and equality. To leave intact the lower court’s holding would not only curtail Philadelphia’s authority, it would also reverse more than 30 years of protection for people who are not explicitly protected by state law. The Commonwealth Court should not have turned back the clock on protection from discrimination.”
Andrew A. Chirls, an attorney for Mazzoni and ACLU, said SEPTA should abide by the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which is LGBT-inclusive.
“If the Commonwealth Court’s decision stands, riders and employees of SEPTA who want to have remedies for discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity will have no place to go,” Chirls said in an email. “And the Commonwealth Court’s decision undermines the system — in place for decades — under which cities and towns have power to innovate in nondiscrimination law in categories beyond the more limited ones created by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. For the most part, Philadelphia has been ahead of the state in creating remedies for discrimination, and the legislature has said that this is the way it should be. The courts should not nullify that approach.”
Chirls also noted that Philadelphia has been on the vanguard of protecting civil rights, including the rights of LGBTs.
“A big point of this case (and a few others we have had over the years) is that local innovation is important. Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter prohibited governmental discrimination based on race as long ago as 1951 — well before the country, the state and most other places in the U.S. were on board. Since then, our city has been a leader. We have to have a legal environment where places like Philadelphia lead the way and show that innovations in nondiscrimination law works. The legislature said that localities get power in this area, and that should be preserved and nurtured.”
At presstime, the state Supreme Court hadn’t ruled on the request by Mazzoni and the ACLU of Pennsylvania to file a statement in support of the city’s position.