SEPTA lawsuits and settlements over the past several years have covered a wide range of ground: a court-ordered reversal of the agency’s 2025 service cuts, a federal consent decree over police harassment, a $3.6 million class action over background-check practices, two data breach settlements, and a steady stream of personal injury cases capped by Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity statute. Below is what each of those cases involved and how they were resolved.
The 2025 Service Cuts Injunction
On August 24, 2025, SEPTA put a 20% service reduction into effect, eliminating 32 bus routes, shortening 16 others, and cutting subway, trolley, and Regional Rail service. The agency pointed to a $213 million structural operating deficit and a stalled state budget in Harrisburg.
Three days later, Philadelphia attorney George Bochetto filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of consumer advocate Lance Haver and riders Tennille Hannah and Johndell Gredic. The complaint argued that the cuts violated Pennsylvania’s equal protection clause and state civil rights statutes because they fell disproportionately on Black, Latino, and low-income bus riders while largely sparing wealthier Regional Rail commuters. It also alleged SEPTA had skipped required public hearings and had money available in its Service Stabilization Fund to keep running.1WHYY. SEPTA Cuts Lawsuit2NBC Philadelphia. SEPTA Cuts Ordered To Stop After Lawsuit, Temporary Injunction Haver cited earlier successful challenges in 2004 and 2007 that had forced SEPTA to reverse reductions on similar grounds.
On August 29, Judge Sierra Thomas Street issued a temporary injunction blocking the planned Regional Rail cuts and a 21.5% fare increase that were set to take effect the next week. After two days of testimony on September 4, she went further, ordering SEPTA to immediately reverse every cut already in place, including bus route eliminations, Regional Rail reductions, station closures, and Paratransit cuts. The order applied “until further order of court.” The judge allowed the 21.5% fare increase to proceed.36abc. Judge Orders Full Restoration of SEPTA Services, Allows Fare Increases No written opinion was issued, which the Inquirer noted is typical for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.4The Philadelphia Inquirer. SEPTA Cuts Reversal After Judge’s Order in Lawsuit
SEPTA said it would comply, and after emergency approval from PennDOT the agency restored full service. Bochetto called the ruling “a victory for the citizens of Philadelphia” and said he planned to challenge the fare increase separately.36abc. Judge Orders Full Restoration of SEPTA Services, Allows Fare Increases5WHYY. Pennsylvania State Budget and SEPTA
DOJ Consent Decree Over Transit Police Harassment
The U.S. Department of Justice sued SEPTA in 2022 after three officers alleged that Sergeant Bryan McCauley had used racial slurs and anti-Muslim language, made threats, and physically assaulted them, and that then-Police Chief Thomas J. Nestel III retaliated against them for reporting it. The officers had first filed EEOC charges in October 2019.6DOJ. United States v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
SEPTA resolved the case through a consent decree entered August 26, 2022. Without admitting discrimination, the agency agreed to pay $496,000 total: $288,000 to Jon L. Randolph, $105,000 to Nathan D’Etorre, and $105,000 to Anthony Lederer. The decree also required SEPTA to overhaul the police department’s complaint-handling process, run mandatory annual anti-discrimination training, and submit to four years of federal oversight. Both McCauley and Nestel had already left the agency by the time it was entered.7The Philadelphia Inquirer. SEPTA Harassment Settlement Involving Race and Religion Discrimination
Long v. SEPTA: The $3.6 Million Background Check Class Action
Frank Long, a 55-year-old commercially licensed bus driver, sued SEPTA in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after his job offer was rescinded in 2014 based on a 1997 drug-related conviction. The suit alleged violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, for failing to give applicants their background check before denying them work, and of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act, arguing SEPTA’s blanket disqualification of applicants with certain felony convictions from vehicle-operation positions went further than state law allows.8Public Interest Law Center. SEPTA Class Action
The case settled for $3.6 million, with final approval on October 8, 2021. Two classes were certified. FCRA class members, applicants denied employment from April 2011 through August 2018 due to criminal history, were eligible for $250 each. CHRIA class members, applicants for vehicle-related positions denied over drug convictions, could receive between $5,000 and $35,000 plus priority rehiring. SEPTA also agreed to rescind the challenged screening policy and hire a neutral third-party expert to review its hiring practices. Class counsel received $1.2 million in fees, and each of the three named plaintiffs received a $15,000 service award.9U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Long v. SEPTA, Final Approval Order
Data Breach Class Actions
Benedetto v. SEPTA (2020 Malware Attack)
An August 10, 2020 malware attack forced SEPTA to shut down real-time information systems and compromised personal data of about 9,300 employees, potentially including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, salary and benefits information, and bank account details. SEPTA Key customer accounts were not affected. The agency worked with the FBI and outside IT experts and provided a year of credit monitoring, paid through cyber insurance.10Governing. Malware Attack Hits Philadelphia Transit Worker Data
The resulting class action, Benedetto v. SEPTA (Case No. 2102-01425), settled with SEPTA agreeing to reimburse class members up to $1,000 for documented economic losses tied to the breach and up to $100 for time spent responding, subject to a $350,000 aggregate cap. Class members also received a year of Equifax credit monitoring. The claim deadline was July 17, 2023, and a final approval hearing was set for September 20, 2023.11SEPTA Data Settlement Administrator. Benedetto v. SEPTA Long Form Notice
The 2023 Breach Settlement
A larger breach in February 2023 exposed personal information for more than 1.6 million people, including names, Social Security numbers, and account and financial details. The related class action settled for $2,625,000, with claimants able to seek up to $2,500 in documented out-of-pocket losses or take a flat alternative cash payment without documentation. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval on October 31, 2025.12Infobytes. District Court Grants Final Approval to Class Action After Data Breach
Personal Injury Claims and the $250,000 Damages Cap
Personal injury claims against SEPTA are constant. In fiscal year 2014–2015, riders filed about 1,400 lawsuits, and the agency received more than 3,400 total claims. SEPTA has historically set aside roughly $43 million a year for legal claims, about 3% of its budget.13MyInjuryAttorney. SEPTA Train Accidents in Pennsylvania
As a Commonwealth agency, SEPTA has sovereign immunity with narrow exceptions. The most important is the vehicle liability exception in Pennsylvania’s Tort Claims Act, which allows suits for injuries caused by a vehicle in SEPTA’s possession or control. Claimants must file formal notice of intent to sue within six months of the incident and file the lawsuit itself within two years. Damages are capped at $250,000 per person and $1 million per accident under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8528.14Rand Spear. What Is the Average Settlement for a SEPTA Bus Accident
That cap is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In Freilich v. SEPTA, a plaintiff whose foot was partially amputated after being hit by a SEPTA bus reached a stipulated $7 million verdict, which the trial court reduced to $250,000 under the statute. The Commonwealth Court upheld the reduction. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in March 2024 and heard oral arguments, but as of early 2025 had not ruled on whether the cap is constitutional.15The Legal Intelligencer. Challenge to State Damages Cap Leaves High Court Mulling the Practicalities
Hernandez v. Independence Constructors: Working Around the Cap
Jesse Hernandez, a subcontract worker, was struck by a SEPTA train on March 12, 2018 while digging a trench near the tracks. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a fractured sternum, jaw and nose fractures, PTSD, and depression. SEPTA settled during trial for its $250,000 statutory maximum, but the case continued against Hernandez’s contractor, Independence Constructors Corp. A Philadelphia jury found ICC 70% liable and awarded Hernandez $7.29 million, more than 70 times ICC’s insurer’s final $100,000 offer. The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the verdict in August 2025, rejecting ICC’s argument that it was Hernandez’s statutory employer and shielded by workers’ compensation immunity.16Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky. After $100K Offer, PA Jury Awards $7.3M to Rail Worker Hit by SEPTA Train17Expert Institute. $7.3M Verdict Upheld in SEPTA Train Injury Case The case shows how injured parties often look past SEPTA itself to reach full compensation, since a decision striking down or upholding the cap in Freilich would reshape every future personal injury claim against the agency.