The lawyer for four women who are suing Schuylkill County Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr. in federal court for allegedly sexually harassing them has asked a judge to issue a contempt order against him for allegedly sharing details of testimony despite being told not to.

The order and sanctions were requested on Tuesday of U.S. District Court Judge Martin C. Carlson by Attorney Catherine W. Smith of Philadelphia.

Carlson gave Halcovage and his lawyer until Feb. 28 to respond to Smith’s request.

Smith contends Halcovage violated the court’s Nov. 12, 2021, discovery confidentiality order, commonly known as a “gag order” by telling a former county employee details of one of the women’s testimony during a deposition, and identifying one of the women.

The confidentiality order governs the disclosure of deposition transcripts and the content of depositions.

And she wants Halcovage and his lawyer, Gerard J. Geiger, to pay for the all attorney’s fees and expenses related to the request within 14 days.

Geiger declined to comment on Smith’s request.

Smith’s motion

According to Smith’s request, Halcovage violated the confidentially order on Jan. 20 when approached the former employee and discussed the contents of a deposition.

Halcovage allegedly further disclosed the identity of one of the women, who are all identified in the lawsuit only as Jane Doe 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Smith contends that Halcovage released the information despite “numerous restrictions concerning access to this information,” and “after almost two years of constant reminders about the confidential nature of the (women’s)’ names and the content of depositions.”

She also argued that the disclosures were intentional.

Halcovage would have had no reason to approach the person, who was last employed by the county in January 2013, she wrote.

Further, Smith wrote, Halcovage “doubled down with additional false statements in another filing only days later.

“This cavalier attitude about this Honorable Court’s Order related to the confidential nature of the issues at hand speaks volumes,” she wrote.

His actions “now include false statements under oath, perhaps as an attempt to intimidate potential witnesses in this matter,” she wrote.

Halcovage’s alleged violation of the confidentiality order stems from testimony given by Jane Doe 4 on Jan. 10.

Jane Doe 4 was questioned about a comment she made that Halcovage would order supplies to use for his personal insurance office. She testified that the former county employee had told her about it.

On Jan. 21, 2023, Jane Doe 4 spoke with the former employee, who told her Halcovage stated that Jane Doe 3, her first name, “brought up your name and mentioned that you said that I used the county supplies for my insurance business.” The former employee then told Jane Doe 3 that he had a brief conversation with Halcovage about what supplies he believed Halcovage used for his insurance business, according to Smith’s request.

Jane Doe 4 told the former employee that she would need to inform her attorney of the conversation that she had with him because she was concerned that Halcovage violated the confidentiality order.

The former employee on Jan. 27 decided to not go on record about the conversation out of concern that becoming involved in the lawsuit would negatively impact his current employer, who does business with the county.

Smith on Feb. 7 questioned Halcovage in court.

According to her request for the contempt order, she wrote that he admitted to talking to the former employee,

“I understand the he [the former employee] knows that I purchased things for my insurance business,” Smith wrote, citing a court transcript.

Halcovage denied telling the former employee that Jane Doe 4 testified that he allegedly misused county funds or property, Smith wrote.

“The Discovery Confidentiality Order clearly instructs that the contents of depositions may not be disclosed to someone such as (the former employee). This conduct constitutes a brazen violation of this Honorable Court’s direction, compelling a finding of civil contempt and impositions of sanctions,” Smith wrote.

She wrote that before filing the motion for a contempt issue, she met with Attorney Geiger but was unable to resolve the matter.

The lawsuit

The women filed the suit on March 16, 2021, alleging Halcovage sexually harassed them beginning when he was first elected in 2012.

Halcovage has steadfastly denied the accusations.

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.

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.

The county in June 2020 after an internal investigation by the Human Resources Department, determined that Halcovage violated county polices, on sexual harassment, and physical and verbal abuse.