Schuylkill County Clerk of Courts Maria T. Casey, a vocal supporter of four courthouse employees who filed a federal sexual harassment against Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr., has asked the court to deny a request from his attorney to the county for her own hard drives and text messages.

The motion for intervention was filed in U.S. District Court, Scranton, on Monday morning by Casey’s attorneys, Frederick J. Fanelli and Sudhir R. Patel of Pottsville.

In the motion, Casey, who is not among those who filed the lawsuit, described Halcovage’s request as “fueled by personal animus and are nothing more than a fishing expedition meant to annoy, harass, and vex Ms. Casey. In context, they appear to be retaliatory, given Ms. Casey’s support of the plaintiffs in this case,” her motion says.

Further, it says, the county “has no authority in directing or instructing Ms. Casey on how to run her office.”

Fanelli and Patel wrote that the county had already requested her hard drive and texts, and was denied.

On Monday, Halcovage referred a request for comment to his attorney.

“All I’ve asked for from day one is due process, and I’m following the rules of due process, and that’s why I’m referring all questions to my attorney,” Halcovage said.

His attorney, Gerard J. Geiger, filed the hard drive request through Attorney Christopher L. Scott of Harrisburg, who is representing the county in the sexual harassment suit.

Geiger had yet to respond to a phone call seeking comment as of 5 p.m. Monday.

The attorney for the four Jane Does, Catherine W. Smith, provided an emailed statement.

“As it relates to Ms. Casey’s hard drive, our position is that most, if not all, of her hard drive contains private, confidential, and nonrelevant material. As it relates to the request for the hard drives of my clients computers we have no objection and we look forward to being provided a copy. My clients stand by each and every one of their actions as employees of Schuylkill County. Any and all conduct they engaged in was lawful and in the furtherance of the duties and responsibilities of the positions they held, and continue to hold, with the county. Thus, we believe the contents of the hard drives will corroborate their hard work and dedication to their jobs. We further believe that copies of their hard drives will corroborate the unlawful acts of the defendants as alleged in the federal complaint,” she wrote.

The petition for intervention

On Feb. 17, Geiger asked the county for the “hard drive and any other media storage for each computer assigned to Ms. Casey,” and all text messages on her county-owned cellphone.

He also asked for the same information from devices used by the four women who filed the lawsuit.

In the motion for intervention, Fanelli and Patel noted the request includes no specific content or time limit on the data. Casey has served as Clerk of Courts since 2016, so “Halcovage’s overlord requests seek six years’ worth of emails and text messages without the slightest indication what he is looking for,” the motion says.

Further, the request includes “all information and communication on (Casey’s) hard drives, storage devices, and text messages” over six years.

“This very likely amounts to tens of thousands of documents/communications,” the motion says.

The items contain information that is irrelevant to the Jane Does’ lawsuit, and is protected by law, the motion says.

For example, Casey has over the years consulted with her solicitor about “various legal issues within the Clerk of Courts office.” Those issues include disciplinary actions within the office and issues related to office policies.

Those matters, the motion says, fall within “attorney-client privilege and are exempt from the state’s Right to Know laws.

Further, the devices contain “highly sensitive, confidential information about Ms. Casey, her employees, and criminal defendants who are processed by her office.”

It includes birth dates, addresses, and Social Security numbers, the motion says.

“The inescapable fact is that defendant Halcovage has no legitimate need for the requested information and he will not be materially prejudiced in this litigation without it,” the petition says.

The lawsuit

The four women, all courthouse employees, filed the lawsuit on March 16, 2021, alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault beginning in 2012, the year Halcovage was first elected.

Although all four are identified only as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4, two of them, through a series of public comments made by citizens and Commissioner Gary J. Hess have been revealed as Tax Claim Director Angela Toomey and Assistant Director Denise McGinley-Gerchak.

Halcovage, along with County Administrator Gary R. Bender, and assistant county solicitor Glenn T. Roth Jr., interim Human Resources Director Doreen Kutzler and current Human Resources Director Heidi Zula were named as defendants.

Attorney Smith has said that “on June 30, 2020, the office of the county solicitor issued a press release which indicated the county, after internal investigation, believed defendant Halcovage violated three Schuylkill County polices, including the sexual harassment policy and physical and verbal abuse policy.”

Halcovage has steadfastly denied the accusations.

The suit was amended on Oct. 29, 2021, alleging the defendants took employment actions against some of the women that were unlawful discrimination, created a hostile work environment, and were intimidation and retaliation for filing the suit.

Two of them have been suspended without pay since September.

Meanwhile, amid calls for his resignation, state lawmakers are determining whether Halcovage should be impeached, which is the only way an elected official can be removed from office.

State Sen. David G. Argall initiated the legislation in November 2021.