Case ID: pa_635/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

133 A.3d 292
    SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, Petitioners.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    March 15, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the General Assembly, when it gave Philadelphia general police powers as expansive as [those] of the General Assembly and specific authority to enact local anti-discrimination laws, intend to exempt SEPTA from compliance with those laws, when the consequence of compliance would not materially disrupt SEPTA’s core transportation function and the consequence of non-compliance would leave hundreds of thousands of Philadelphia passengers and employees without a remedy against many forms of discrimination?

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.