SCRANTON – A Schuylkill County official wants to see dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against them by four anonymous County employees, alleging the plaintiffs did not seek proper authorization to proceed under an anonymous designation and had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Jane Does 1-4 first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 16 versus the Schuylkill County Courthouse, Schuylkill County Commissioner George Halcovage, Assistant County Solicitor and Risk Manager Glenn Roth, County Administrator Gary Bender, interim Human Resources Director Doreen Kutzler and current Human Resources Director Heidi Zula, all of Pottsville.
The four unnamed plaintiffs were all Schuylkill County employees, who alleged Halcovage told them that in order to get raises or promotions, they had to change their political party to Republican.
Furthermore, the suit stated Halcovage also allegedly frequently sexually harassed the women through unwanted comments about their bodies and sexual activities, including allegedly forcing one of the plaintiffs to perform oral sex on him on several occasions.
Halcovage was also allegedly responsible for making comments that insinuated an affair in front of one of the plaintiff’s spouses, allegedly leading to her divorce. Other examples of Halcovage’s extensive alleged sexual harassment were outlined in the suit’s 75 pages.
The other administrative defendants in the case are accused of being aware of Halcovage’s behavior, but doing nothing to discipline or remedy it.
The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the lawsuit on March 26, leading the plaintiffs to file an amended version of the suit on April 16.
Halcovage filed a motion to dismiss the amended suit on April 25, while the other defendants did the same on April 30.
“Plaintiffs’ case must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) for failure to identify the Plaintiff. Plaintiffs did not seek prior approval of court for a Jane Doe designation. Claims against defendants Roth and Bender in their official capacity should be stricken, because they are duplicative with the claims against Schuylkill County.
“Plaintiffs fail to state causes of action for intentional torts under common law. Plaintiffs fail to properly state claims upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) regarding their Title VII claims for discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation (Counts 1-3) as well as similar state law claims (Counts 4-7).”
The defendants also contended that:
• The plaintiffs have not yet exhausted their administrative remedies pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act;
• That defendants Bender and Roth should be dismissed regarding state claims for discrimination, as there is no individual liability for discrimination under the PHRA and;
• That defendants Schuylkill County Courthouse, Bender and Roth should be dismissed regarding all counts related to claims under the PHRA, as plaintiffs have failed to set forth any legal liability for these claims.
“Further, defendants, Courthouse, Bender and Roth seek to strike any demand for punitive and liquidated damages within plaintiffs’ omnibus prayer for relief, and defendants reserve the right to present additional arguments for its motion to dismiss in its [upcoming] brief.”
UPDATE
After amended complaints were filed on April 16 and Oct. 29, defendant Kutzler motioned to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on Jan. 3.
“Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint added additional factual assertions as well as named new defendants in the action including moving defendant Kutzler. Defendant Kutzler moves this honorable court for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’ complaint has been improperly brought utilizing pseudonyms and without court approval to do same, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), and should be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint purports to assert claims against moving defendant Kutzler, in her alleged capacity as a ‘Human Resources Representative’ for co-defendant Schuylkill County,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint asserts claims against moving defendant under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (Counts V–VII) and under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (Counts VIII, IX and XIII). Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against moving defendant Kutzler under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to establish liability against defendant Kutzler and, moreover, there is no basis for individual liability for direct claims asserted under the Act (Counts V and VI). Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim for which relief can be granted against defendant Kutzler under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (Counts VIII, IX and XIII).”
For counts of discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, aiding and abetting, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and violation of a state privacy law, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at the time of trial plus interest, including, but not limited to all emotional distress and back pay and front pay, punitive damages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements of action; and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by Catherine W. Smith of Derek Smith Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Christopher L. Scott of Thomas Thomas & Hafer in Harrisburg, Gerard J. Geiger of Newman Williams Mishkin Corveleyn Wolfe & Fareri in Stroudsburg, Matthew J. Connell of MacMain Connell & Leinhauser of West Chester and Paul Gregory Lees of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Allentown.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:21-cv-00477
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com