The federal judge presiding over a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by four Schuylkill County employees on Tuesday signed off on the settlement of a related action the U.S. Department of Justice filed against the county.

U. S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s signature finalizes the settlement, also known as a consent decree, reached Jan. 6 and approved by county commissioners on Jan. 11. The DOJ has also formally signed the measure.

Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr., against who the sexual harassment suit was filed on March 16, 2021, voted against the settlement, saying that to vote in favor would be admitting to the accusations.

The suit against him continues to be heard in U.S. District Court, Scranton.

The DOJ in May joined the suit, contending the county violated the civil rights of the women who filed the suit against Halcovage, alleging they were harassed and then two of them were retaliated against for filing the suit.

The settlement was between the DOJ and the county only; it does not affect the women’s lawsuit against Halcovage, County Administrator Gary R. Bender, Risk Manager/Assistant County Solicitor Glenn T. Roth Jr., and the county.

Settlement details

The settlement includes the requirement that the county hire a DOJ-approved consultant to conduct sexual harassment surveys of courthouse employees, propose improvements to the county’s equal employment opportunity policies and develop a new sexual harassment training program.

The settlement also places restrictions on Halcovage: He may not “abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten the plaintiffs in any place where they might be found; he will not directly contact them by telephone or by any other means, and that any contact between them which is necessitated by the plaintiffs’ employment will be through a third party.

In addition, Halcovage will comply with both the Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act and the county’s Ethics Policy when the commissioners vote on matters which impact any of the plaintiffs.

Halcovage is to undergo within 90 days personal training on sexual harassment and retaliation, which will be developed and administered by the consultant.

Also, he may not enter the offices where any of the plaintiffs work, which currently include the Tax Claim Bureau and Tax Assessment Office.

The DOJ’s entry into the settlement “recognizes and is predicated on the County’s prior offers of judgment, which provided for $850,000 to the four plaintiffs, plus additional amounts for their attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Attorney statements

On Tuesday, lawyers for both the women and for Halcovage weighed in via emailed statements on the settlement.

“My clients were not parties to the consent decree negotiations, and they continue to pursue their claims against the county as well as the individual defendants,” wrote Attorney Catherine W. Smith, who represents the women.

“They were, as part of the negotiations, offered monetary compensation. This offer required resolution of their claims and could have limited what the public was permitted to learn of the facts. My clients believe, as important as the financial compensation for the harms they suffered is, the public’s ability to hear all the facts and circumstances which support their claims is more important.

“As it relates to the consent decree, we are cautiously optimistic. Should the court approve the decree, we are hopeful that the proposed changes will allow those who have been victims of sexual harassment, retaliation, or any type of unlawful workplace conduct to speak up and speak out against it. We are also hopeful that the proposed changes will prevent such unlawful conduct to occur in the future,” Smith wrote.

Halcovage’s lawyer, Gerard J. Geiger, also shared his considerations.

“Commissioner Halcovage was not a named defendant in the Department of Justice lawsuit. As he mentioned in his dissent to the consent decree, he was in favor of enhancing and refreshing the county’s HR policies and the training of county staff,” Geiger wrote.

“But Commissioner Halcovage voted “no” to approving the consent decree. He disagrees with restrictions that interfere with his ability under the Pennsylvania County Code to carry out his responsibilities to the county as its Commissioner.”

He added, “Halcovage takes his duties very seriously.”

“The restrictions presuppose that Halcovage poses a threat to the staff and that his limits on access to his office and county property will not interfere with his statutory responsibilities. They most certainly will interfere. Most importantly, they assume guilt before George Halcovage’s voice is ever heard.

“George Halcovage is very eager to tell his story. But, as his attorney, I have asked him to refrain from commenting about this case. This has been very frustrating for him, but he has followed that advice. I understand his frustration, but this is not a case that will be decided in the media. As to why others insist on trying their case in the press, rather than before a court of law, I can only speculate. George’s voice will be heard but we ask for the community’s patience in waiting for the trial,” Geiger wrote.