SEPTA came out swinging last week, urging the state Supreme Court to uphold its ruling that SEPTA isn’t bound by the city’s LGBT-inclusive antibias law.
SEPTA is the region’s mass-transit system, serving more than 650,000 riders daily in Philadelphia, four surrounding counties and parts of New Jersey and Delaware. It maintains that, as a state agency, it’s not governed by the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance. But the city opposes SEPTA’s position. The protracted litigation has ensued for almost 10 years.
In a 4-3 ruling in April, the high court sided with SEPTA, noting the transit agency has “sovereign immunity” from complaints such as those handled by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which enforces the Fair Practices Ordinance.
On May 10, city attorneys asked the court to reconsider its decision, arguing that SEPTA isn’t immunized from all types of antibias complaints handled by the PCHR.
On May 23, SEPTA filed an 11-page rebuttal, urging the court to reject the city’s petition as meritless.
“The city’s application for reargument fails to present any compelling circumstances justifying reargument,” SEPTA stated in its rebuttal. “Instead, the city simply seeks a ‘do over’ because it is unhappy with the court’s decision in this case. Because that is not the standard for granting reargument under [the law], the city’s application must be denied.”
Justin F. Robinette, a local civil-rights attorney, criticized both sides for failing to acknowledge the anti-LGBT nature of the court’s ruling.
“The city’s petition is unlikely to be granted unless the court is convinced about a very important or overriding reason to further consider the issue,” Robinette said in an email. “One of the specific grounds for reconsideration is ‘where the issues have potential for a significant impact upon developing law or public policy.’ That’s really the only ground that might conceivably work here. Reading the city’s petition and SEPTA’s response, one would never know that an important LGBT issue is at stake. This was the perfect opportunity to raise the LGBT community’s concerns regarding the court’s anti-LGBT ruling.”
Robinette noted that, in its petition, the city emphasized the need for marital-status protections and protection for domestic-violence victims, categories not covered by state law. State law, however, also does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“Once again, the LGBT community has been relegated to the status of an invisible minority,” Robinette said. “The city should be ashamed of itself.”
Ajeenah Amir, a spokesperson for Mayor Jim Kenney, defended the city’s handling of the case.
“As you know, the city is fully supportive of the principles of nondiscrimination with respect to LGBT individuals,” Amir said in an email. “That’s one of the main reasons why we feel it is important that all employers and public accommodations in the city comply with the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance. While we continue to advocate for those rights publicly as an administration, it is the responsibility of the Law Department to make the strongest possible legal argument, and that’s what we feel they’ve done in this case. The city utilizes other avenues such as the Office of LGBT Affairs and the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations to advocate for public policy.”
