SEPTA, the region’s mass-transit agency, continues to seek an exemption from adherence to the city’s LGBT-inclusive antibias rules.
In a 28-page document filed in state Supreme Court, SEPTA insisted it’s a state agency. Thus, it’s only required to adhere to the state’s antibias rules, which aren’t LGBT-inclusive.
In an August ruling, Commonwealth Court agreed with SEPTA’s position, but the city is appealing in state Supreme Court.
SEPTA has about 9,000 employees. It serves Philadelphia, four nearby Pennsylvania counties and some areas of New Jersey and Delaware.
It its Sept. 21 court filing, SEPTA minimized the impact of its exemption on the civil rights of LGBTs.
“[The city’s] professed belief that the Commonwealth Court’s decision will open the floodgates of discrimination is misguided litigation rhetoric,” SEPTA stated.
The highly contentious litigation began in 2009, after trans woman Charlene Arcila complained to the city’s Human Relations Commission about SEPTA’s placement of gender stickers on transpasses. Arcila died in April, and SEPTA no longer places gender stickers on transpasses. But Arcila’s complaint has been held in abeyance due to the possibility that monetary damages will be awarded to her estate.
In August, Commonwealth Court ruled that exposing SEPTA to complaints such as Arcila’s would be unduly burdensome on the transit agency.
But city officials claim that SEPTA’s adherence to its LGBT-inclusive antibias rules is an urgent civil-rights issue.
SEPTA’s court filing notes the transit authority isn’t prohibited from engaging in a variety of biases, not just anti-LGBT bias.
“SEPTA is not legally prohibited from firing an employee for cheering for the Dallas Cowboys, refusing to allow a passenger to board a bus because the driver does not like his clothes or permitting a conductor to discharge any of his ex-girlfriends from the train,” the filing notes. “The point is that anybody can conjure up examples of conduct that should be discouraged but would not violate [antibias rules]. The fact remains there is no indication that any such behavior is actually occurring to any meaningful extent, let alone that allowing the Commonwealth Court’s decision to stand would so ‘undermine human dignity and human rights’ that it cries out for [state] Supreme Court’s intervention.”
SEPTA’s filing refers to the city’s position as “hysterical,” and accuses the city of engaging in “scare tactics” through the use of a rhetorical device known as a “parade of horribles.”
“The city’s hysterical rhetoric about the dire consequences that will supposedly befall the residents of Philadelphia if this court does not [reverse the lower court] bears no basis in reality,” the filing states.
SEPTA also maintains that six years of litigation is long enough. “Stated plainly, after six years of litigation, it is time for this saga to come to an end. Accordingly, SEPTA respectfully requests that the [city’s] petition be denied.”
The filing also notes SEPTA hasn’t been subjected to the city’s antibias rules for six years and “catastrophic consequences” haven’t resulted.
“[T]he city has managed to carry on for the last six years, apparently without the supposedly catastrophic consequences envisioned by the [city], while the status of SEPTA’s coverage under the Fair Practices Ordinance has been in limbo. It stands to reason that if the consequences of exempting SEPTA from the Fair Practices Ordinance were as ominous as the [city] predicts, the General Assembly would have stepped in long ago to broaden the scope of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”
Additionally, SEPTA said it’s not opposed to expanding the state’s Human Relations Act so that it protects the LGBT community from discrimination.
“As SEPTA has repeatedly stated, it takes no public position on the policy question of whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act should be expanded to include protection against categories not currently included. SEPTA also reiterates that it has no desire to engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Rather, SEPTA opposes application of the Fair Practices Ordinance against it for the precise reasons that the Commonwealth Court found compelling in its analysis of the consequences.”
As of presstime, the state Supreme Court hadn’t ruled on the city’s request to review the Commonwealth Court ruling.