State Supreme Court Justice David N. Wecht recently disclosed a campaign contribution received from a law firm representing SEPTA in an antibias dispute pending before Wecht.
The protracted litigation has ensued for several years, and currently is under consideration by the state Supreme Court.
SEPTA claims it doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the city’s Human Relations Commission, which investigates LGBT-related antibias complaints. Instead, SEPTA claims that, as a state agency, it falls under the jurisdiction of the state Human Relations Commission, which doesn’t routinely investigate LGBT-related antibias complaints.
Earlier this month, Wecht informed both sides that his campaign committee received $10,500 from the Dilworth Paxson Law Firm between December 2014 and December 2015.
In a July 5 letter, Wecht explained the committee received about $3.76 million from various sources “over the life of the campaign.”
A spokesperson for Wecht said the justice doesn’t feel the need to recuse himself from the case.
“Justice Wecht believes he can be fair and impartial in this case,” said James J. Koval. “So there is no necessity to recuse himself. The justice initiated the disclosure that he received from the law firm of a party in the case a $10,500 contribution in his election campaign that raised $3,760,000. However, no amount of campaign contributions would affect Justice Wecht’s decisions in any case. He went further in inviting the parties to nevertheless file a motion for his recusal if they wish.”
Wecht’s July 5 letter goes on to state: “Should any party wish to file a request for recusal, Justice Wecht will consider and decide such request without defensiveness and with an open mind. Any such request should be filed without delay.”
Richard Feder, chief deputy city solicitor, said the city won’t seek Wecht’s recusal.
SEPTA spokesperson Andrew Busch had no comment.
In a related matter, on July 11, city attorneys filed their final brief in the case.
“[To allow SEPTA] to discriminate on the basis of any characteristic not covered by state law would deal a devastating blow to thousands of employees, commuters, citizens and visitors,” attorneys wrote in the brief. “[Our City Council hasn’t] set forth a hierarchy of importance when it comes to protected characteristics. Civil society suffers when any prohibited discrimination is allowed to fester.”
Oral arguments are slated for 10 a.m. Sept. 13 in Courtroom 456 of City Hall.