We may be getting an indication to, at least in part, the defense Schuylkill County Commissioner George Halcovage will put up against a federal sexual harassment lawsuit he’s facing.
Those defense details were spelled out – again, at least in part – in his attorney’s response to a Motion to Intervene in that lawsuit by Clerk of Courts Maria Casey.
Casey objects to Halcovage’s attorney, Gerard Geiger, seeking her work computer hard drive and work phone records. Geiger filed a response to Casey’s motion last week.
Halcovage Defense Strategy Partially Revealed?
In addition to outlining the many reasons why Geiger believes Halcovage is entitled to view those devices, he also alluded to the County Commissioner’s defense against the allegations he faces.
Halcovage is being sued by 4 Jane Doe plaintiffs who claim they were sexually harassed by him over the course of several years, up to nearly a decade in some instances. Those women – all Schuylkill County government employees – are suing the County, too, and a few Courthouse officials for their complicity in the Commissioner’s alleged behavior.
A trial in this case is currently scheduled for later this year.
Up until this filing last week, Halcovage has remained tight-lipped. He denies the allegations he’s facing. In this response from his attorney however, we get at least an indication where his defense may be heading.
In one response, Geiger says Halcovage believes that state legislators may have held off on launching their impeachment investigation against him had they heard his side of the story on “what really happened.”
Geiger writes that the lawmakers in Harrisburg may have “rushed to judgement” in starting their probe.
Later in this response, Geiger suggests Halcovage is anxious to tell that story.
“Halcovage is not ‘defiant’,” as Casey suggests in her motion, he writes. “(Halcovage) looks forward to explaining to the court what really happened.”
“A Mix of Anecdotes”
Overall, Halcovage believes the women can’t state a cause of action. That means he doesn’t believe they have a reason to sue him. The reason? A lack of details.
In the response to Casey’s motion in which she cites the “very detailed 76-page complaint” against his client, Geiger writes the following:
The complaint, which in its original form was 76 pages, is a mix of anecdotes extending back a decade and is not very detailed with respect to when events occurred.
Plaintiffs were not able to, or chose not to, provide specific dates when events allegedly occurred, sometimes not even knowing what year an even occurred.
Many of the events have no supporting documentation of having occurred because plaintiffs made no complaints to the County or to Halcovage.
Later in the response, Geiger adds to the argument that the Does’ complaint lacks specifics. He writes:
The plaintiffs have made allegations where they cannot even explain what year they claim Halcovage may have made an off-color remark. These were remarks they never reported, despite claiming how traumatized they were.”