SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, Aplts.

[J-87-2016][M.O. – Mundy, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA : No. 10 EAP 2016 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, :

: Appeal from the Order of the Appellee : Commonwealth Court at No. 2445 CD

: 2009 filed 8/7/15 reversing and : remanding the order, dated 11/10/09 in

v. : the Court of Common Pleas,

: Philadelphia County, Civil Division at : No. 03055, July Term, 2009

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND :

PHILADELPHIA COMMISSION ON :

HUMAN RELATIONS, :

:

Appellants : ARGUED: September 13, 2016

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: April 26, 2017

I join the lead opinion, subject to the proviso that I agree with Justice Wecht’s comments about the relevant analytical framework. In this respect, I also note that sometimes, the mechanical formulation and heralding of a specific test – such as what the Court has dubbed the “Ogontz test” – has unintended consequences.

Here, I agree with Justice Wecht, that the “Ogontz test” reflects nothing more than a conventional application of principles of statutory construction. As such, and since the discrete, tiered analysis appears to be generating disharmony, I would prefer to abandon the label at this juncture. In its place, I would simply refer directly to the Statutory Construction Act.