Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Coal Region Canary
Coal Region CanaryCoal Region Canary

Local News

Halcovage, Other Defendants Ask Judge to Dismiss Jane Doe Claims

Each Defendant claims they had no individual authority to take action against Jane Does.

Schuylkill County Commissioner George Halcovage and the other defendants in the Jane Doe sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit have asked a federal judge to dismiss the claims against them.

Court filings show that each Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgement by the July 31 deadline. And in those filings, each asked District Judge Martin C. Carlson to dismiss the lawsuit against them.

The common theme among the filings by Halcovage, County Administrator Gary Bender, former Human Resources Directors Heidi Zula and Doreen Kutzler, and Solicitor Glenn Roth is that neither of them, on their own, had the authority to do what the Jane Doe Plaintiffs are claiming happened to them.

Motions for Summary Judgement Filed in Jane Doe Lawsuit

In their 2021 lawsuit against Halcovage and these Defendants, the 4 Jane Does say they were subject to years of sexual harassment by Halcovage. They also claim they were retaliated against by the other Defendants and discriminated against based on their gender.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The Jane Does have already rejected an $850,000 settlement offer in this case. And recent settlement negotiations completely fell apart with no deal. Because of that, this case inches toward a potential trial.

Part of that process includes these filings of Motions for Summary Judgement. In them, Defendants ask the overseeing judge to rule on some or all of the claims in the lawsuit, possibly eliminating the need for a trial or at least limiting its scope.

Let’s take a look at each of the Defendant’s filing of a Motion for Summary Judgement.


Halcovage requests the court to rule in his favor due to the following arguments:

  1. The plaintiffs, referred to as “Does 1 and 2,” cannot produce evidence of conduct by Halcovage that is considered sufficiently outrageous and extreme to qualify as IIED under Pennsylvania law. They also fail to provide competent medical evidence of the alleged emotional distress caused by Halcovage’s actions.
  2. The plaintiffs allege that Halcovage individually retaliated against them and aided others in retaliation, including actions like suspension without pay, pay rate changes, and office restructuring. Halcovage counters this claim, arguing that he did not make these decisions alone but acted as part of a three-person commissioner board. As such, he lacks the individual decision-making authority and thus cannot be held personally liable for these actions. Any claims against him individually should be dismissed.
  3. On the equal protection claims, Halcovage contends that the plaintiffs cannot factually prove they suffered adverse employment actions due to their gender. Furthermore, any potential adverse actions were taken in his role as a County Commissioner, which does not hold individual liability.
  4. Halcovage asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity from the suit.

He requests the court to enter a partial summary judgment in his favor, and he promises to submit a supporting statement of facts and a brief according to local civil procedure rules.


The claims against Gary Bender specifically include retaliation under the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA), aiding and abetting discrimination under PHRA, a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim alleging discrimination, a Fourteenth Amendment claim alleging a hostile work environment, and a violation of the petition clause of the First Amendment alleging retaliation.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
  1. Bender’s lawyers argue that he had no knowledge of Halcovage’s alleged behavior until May 2020, and as he did not have the authority to alter Halcovage’s employment, he cannot be liable for inaction. They also argue that Bender should be granted qualified immunity.
  2. They further contend that as a County Administrator, Bender did not have the authority to hire, fire, promote, or adjust the salaries of County employees. Therefore, they argue, he did not take any alleged adverse actions against the plaintiffs.
  3. The lawyers then outline their arguments against each claim. They dispute that Bender’s actions were retaliatory, arguing instead that they were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. They also state that Bender did not possess the authority to commit the actions that the plaintiffs claim he did.
  4. Bender’s lawyers argue that he lacked the supervisory authority necessary for an aiding and abetting claim. They assert that he did not have the authority to promote, demote, or terminate the plaintiffs.
  5. Bender’s lawyers also dispute the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims, arguing that Bender did not engage in any affirmative conduct that contributed to the alleged discrimination.

The motion concludes by stating that a more detailed argument and a Concise Statement of Material Facts will be filed as per a stipulation between parties.


The primary allegations against Zula revolve around claims of retaliation, aiding and abetting discrimination, and violations of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and the First Amendment’s petition clause.

Zula’s defense asserts that she was not in a position of authority to control the plaintiffs’ employment or influence the alleged harassment.

It is also noted that she served as the County’s Human Resources Director from January 2021 to June 2022, a timeline that indicates she started her role after the initial complaint was reported and left before most of the alleged harassment occurred.

The motion seeks a summary judgment in Zula’s favor, asserting that she didn’t hold supervisory authority over the plaintiffs, didn’t take any adverse employment action against them, and thus, cannot be held responsible for the allegations.

Her defense also suggests that Zula is entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that shields government officials from being held personally liable for actions performed in their official capacity, provided their conduct didn’t clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.


Kutzler, who was an interim Human Resources representative for Schuylkill County, is now asking the court to rule in her favor, dismissing the claims against her. She served after Zula left the job and the County hired an outside firm, temporarily, to handle HR oversight.

Kutzler’s legal team argues that the plaintiffs haven’t provided enough evidence to prove she’s liable. To support her motion, Kutzler will present a brief and concise statement of facts following local legal rules and the court’s briefing schedule.

She is asking the court to rule in her favor without a trial, dismissing all the claims made against her in the plaintiffs’ second revised complaint.


Roth argues the plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action for retaliation under PHRA because they haven’t presented specific instances of his involvement in retaliation and he was not involved in any disciplinary decisions related to the plaintiffs.

He maintains that his role as Assistant Solicitor did not grant him supervisory authority over the plaintiffs, thus he couldn’t alter their employment terms.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Roth denies aiding and abetting under PHRA because he neither committed direct acts of discrimination nor failed to prevent further discrimination as he had no supervisory authority over the plaintiffs or other county employees.

Regarding the disparate treatment and hostile work environment charges under the Equal Protection Clause, Roth claims that he never engaged in direct harassment or discrimination, nor had an inappropriate relationship with the plaintiffs.

He asserts that no evidence has been presented indicating that he treated the plaintiffs differently than male colleagues in similar positions.

Lastly, Roth argues that plaintiffs cannot state a cause for retaliation under the Equal Protection Clauseas they need to prove he took retaliatory action in response to them exercising their constitutional rights, and he maintains that there’s no causal link established.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Subscribe to Coal Region Canary

Get email updates from Coal Region Canary by becoming a subscriber today. Just enter your email address below to get started!

News Tips?

Let us know of news happening in your area. Use our NEWS TIPS ENTRY FORM


  1. PTFloridian

    August 6, 2023 at 9:18 am

    Doesn’t look good for the Doe bunch.

    • Canary Commenter

      August 6, 2023 at 2:15 pm

      Hard to say. If the County didn’t think they had a case, they would have never tried to settle this suit. These defenses were to be expected. It’s true, none of them had individual authority to take any action against them but that defense doesn’t really answer the claims against them. It’ll be up to the Does to prove these folks conspired against them. If they do that, it’ll be a real condemnation of how the Courthouse is run and confirm many rumors that have swirled for years about that place.

  2. Val

    August 7, 2023 at 5:45 pm

    Let’s admit it, Schuylkill County’s courthouse workers are mostly women.
    If the Judge dismisses these 4 women’s claims, the Schuylkill County might have some serious problems with employment.

    • PTFloridian

      August 8, 2023 at 1:56 pm

      Prolly not… everyone wants to ride the gravy train for at least a little while.

      • Val

        August 8, 2023 at 3:33 pm

        PTFloridian, possible/maybe/questionable. If next Halcovage is in the office, the ladies at least should be smart enough to collect a sample of his sperm, as an “evidence”:-)))
        CoalRegionCanary, just fyi, your “reply” option doesn’t work.

  3. Val

    August 8, 2023 at 4:00 pm

    So the plaintiffs could not produce enough evidence that Halcovage’s conduct was extreme and outrageous. I can picture Schuylkill County courthouse as some sort of the Gardens of Pleasure, where it is very normal to have these kind of activities in a workplace:-)))

  4. PTFloridian

    August 9, 2023 at 8:02 am

    The whole notion that this Doe bunch put up with and endured YEARS of harassment leads me to think that there’s something afoul here. On toppa’ that, they can’t prove anything or provide evidence of anything damning, from YEARS of alleged abuse. There’s probably a lot wrong with the way the County Courthouse operates, but this whole story stinks and is a shame it’s taking up such time, effort and resources.

    • Val

      August 9, 2023 at 10:50 am

      If the plaintiffs did not provide “enough evidence” for Halcovage or his attorneys, it does not necessarily mean they would not provide enough to the Court at the trial. It normally takes time because “The law is slow”.

  5. PTFloridian

    August 9, 2023 at 9:56 pm

    …I’m not a big fan of Georgie Porgie, but the 4 bullet points, noted by The Canary, under the Halcovage header at the top of the article, sounds like a whole lotta no evidence or proofs…Doh 🤦

    • Val

      August 10, 2023 at 10:22 am

      4 “bullet points” actually are noted by Halcovage’s attorneys, let’s not forget. Second and third points are telling the public that Mr.Innocent was not acting individually, but collectively, with the other two County Commissioners. That really helps:-))

  6. PTFloridian

    August 12, 2023 at 6:32 pm

    Mr Innocent, is, in fact innocent, until a jury says otherwise…I’m not seeing it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More From The Canary

Local News

Woman arrested Friday was home health care worker allegedly providing meth to patient.

Local News

Where does your school rank in the county, state, and nationally?

Local Business News

Food, crafters, and artists among those setting up shop this weekend.

Local News

The latest info on the growing tropical threat ...

Local News

The phishing operation carried on for 2 years.

Local News

Justice Dept. says Javier Guzman dealt "high-quality" meth in the area in 2022.

Local Sports

Pottsville native led team in home runs and RBI.

Local News

Heavy rain still expected here, though maybe not as much as previously forecasted.

Schuylkill County Police News

The world's gone mad.

Schuylkill County Police News

The crash happened on Brockton Mountain Rd. in Ryan Twp.

Schuylkill County Police News

A search of the mall came up empty for a bomb.

PA News

The election would be 5 weeks sooner than it's currently scheduled.