The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Monday in favor of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in a racial discrimination case brought by a former African American police officer who alleged her 2019 termination was racially motivated.
In *Cox v. SEPTA*, No. 25-1100, the three-judge panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for both SEPTA and Chief Thomas Nestel on all claims brought under federal civil rights laws and Pennsylvania state law. The opinion was filed Jan. 26, 2026, but marked as non-precedential, meaning it does not establish binding legal precedent for future cases.
Kady-Ann Cox worked as a police officer for SEPTA when Chief Thomas Nestel terminated her employment in 2019. Cox, who is African American, alleged that Nestel terminated her because of her race, bringing claims under multiple civil rights statutes including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and Section 1983 for violations of her federal statutory rights under Section 1981 and constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where District Judge Kelley B. Hodge granted summary judgment for both defendants on all of Cox's claims in case No. 2:21-cv-04542. Cox subsequently appealed to the Third Circuit.
The appeals court panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Thomas M. Ambro, Stephanos Bibas, and Cindy K. Chung, heard the case under Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a), which allows for submission without oral argument when the court determines the case can be decided on the briefs alone. The case was submitted on Jan. 12, 2026.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro authored the opinion for the unanimous panel. The court's ruling indicates that Cox failed to establish her discrimination claims under the various federal and state civil rights statutes she invoked.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The law requires plaintiffs to establish either direct evidence of discrimination or, more commonly, to meet the burden-shifting framework established in *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green*, which requires showing that they were members of a protected class, were qualified for their position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act provides similar protections under state law, prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Courts generally apply the same analytical framework to PHRA claims as they do to federal Title VII claims.
Section 1983 allows individuals to sue for violations of their federal civil rights by persons acting under color of state law. Cox's Section 1983 claim was based on alleged violations of Section 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in contractual relationships including employment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
The fact that the district court granted summary judgment suggests that Cox was unable to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her discrimination claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
SEPTA operates public transportation throughout southeastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia and surrounding counties. The agency employs its own police force to provide security and law enforcement services across its transit system. As a public transportation authority, SEPTA and its employees are subject to federal civil rights laws governing public sector employment.
The Third Circuit's affirmance means that both SEPTA and Chief Nestel have prevailed on all claims in the lawsuit. The court's designation of the opinion as non-precedential indicates that while it resolves this particular dispute, it will not serve as binding authority in future employment discrimination cases in the Third Circuit.
Employment discrimination cases often turn on the specific facts and evidence presented, including documentation of the employer's stated reasons for termination, comparative evidence regarding treatment of similarly situated employees of different races, and any direct evidence of discriminatory intent or bias.
The ruling represents another challenge for employees seeking to prove racial discrimination in termination cases, where employers typically assert legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their employment decisions. Courts require plaintiffs to show either that the stated reasons are pretextual or that discrimination was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action.
For SEPTA, the victory provides validation of its employment practices and termination decision regarding Cox. The ruling suggests that the agency was able to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Cox's termination that the courts found credible.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by employees alleging workplace discrimination and the evidentiary hurdles they must overcome to succeed in federal court. While civil rights laws provide important protections against employment discrimination, proving such claims requires substantial evidence to demonstrate that race was a motivating factor in adverse employment decisions.