A former Schuylkill County employee is suing the county, Chief Tax Assessor Kent Hatter, and former Human Resources Director Heidi Zula, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.

The complaint, filed on March 4 in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, details accusations against Hatter by an unnamed plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe. Doe filed discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division granted Doe the right in December 2023 to pursue a civil lawsuit against the accused parties.

Doe seeks a jury trial and financial compensation.

Hatter was named Schuylkill County’s Chief Tax Assessor in May 2021 and became Doe’s direct supervisor. The complaint alleges that the harassment began shortly after Hatter’s appointment.

According to the complaint, the issues began during a June 6, 2021, meeting between Hatter, Doe, and another employee identified as Witness Doe 1.

During this meeting, Hatter allegedly made several sexually suggestive comments to both Doe and Witness Doe 1.

The complaint details these comments, including Hatter telling Doe and Witness Doe 1, “I know what the two of you need. You need structure and routine in your lives,” and then turning the conversation to TikTok, allegedly saying, “It’s pretty good. It’s like soft porn.”

Doe and Witness Doe 1 reported the harassment to Zula, the human resources director at the time.

The lawsuit alleges that both Doe and Witness Doe 1 were apprehensive about filing the complaint, because other county employees had reportedly faced retaliation for unrelated sexual harassment reports.

Formal complaint

Witness Doe 1 submitted a formal complaint via email on June 7, 2021. Zula requested a meeting with both Doe and Witness Doe 1 to discuss the accusations.

Doe expressed discomfort with a union steward being present at the meeting and requested an impartial witness of her choosing.

Zula denied this request and reiterated that an AFSCME representative could be available. The complaint alleges that Doe questioned Zula’s impartiality given another instance where a Schuylkill County employee requested an independent witness during a meeting with Zula and was denied.

Doe and Witness Doe 1 met with Zula on June 10, 2021, to file a formal complaint against Hatter. By June 21, 2021, the complaint states, neither had heard any updates on the investigation.

When they inquired about the status, Zula responded that the investigation was ongoing.

On the same day, both Doe and Witness Doe 1 submitted requests to work from home following the complaint filed with Zula.

Hatter denied these requests. According to the complaint, other county employees were permitted to work from home.

The complaint details instances where Hatter monitored Doe and Witness Doe 1’s work hours and criticized them for not being in the courthouse during work hours, despite their job duties sometimes requiring them to be elsewhere.

More than a month after the initial complaint, Doe and Witness Doe 1 each had separate meetings with Hatter and Zula. During Doe’s meeting, Hatter allegedly made a comment referencing her deceased boyfriend’s suicide.

According to the lawsuit, Hatter told the plaintiff, “What do you want me to do, bring your dead boyfriend back?”

The complaint states, “Hatter was aware that plaintiff Doe had recently, and unexpectedly, lost her boyfriend to suicide.”

“Upon information and belief,” the complaint continues, “Hatter’s statements were made because he believed plaintiff Doe, as a woman, was being too emotional about the loss of her boyfriend.”

Retaliation charge

In addition to the alleged harassment by Hatter, the lawsuit details instances of retaliation by Zula. Witness Doe 1 reportedly received a written warning after her meeting with Hatter and Zula in July 2021. Doe received a written warning in the same meeting.

The complaint also details an instance where Doe attempted to arrange a meeting with another supervisor to discuss an escort into the courthouse to obtain work materials. This arrangement had been previously agreed upon by Doe, the other supervisor, and Hatter. However, the other supervisor allegedly never responded to Doe’s request, and the lawsuit alleges Hatter interfered by telling the supervisor not to respond.

Suspension

By December 2021, both Doe and Witness Doe 1 were permitted to work from home.

The lawsuit details a Loudermill Hearing held in February 2022 for Doe to discuss “unapproved absences” from work. The complaint alleges that Doe and her union representative requested a laptop computer to allow her to work remotely, but this request was denied. In March 2022, Doe received a notice for a five-day unpaid suspension.

The situation escalated in August 2022 when Doe received an email from the human resources director at the time, Andrea Whelan. The email attached a letter dated the previous day stating Doe’s absence from work without leave or approval since April.

“The county has no alternative but to determine that you have abandoned your field appraiser position and have voluntarily resigned your position,” the email states, according to the complaint.

Doe denied resigning and responded via email to Whelan, highlighting the forced nature of her separation due to ongoing retaliation. She said the lack of recent work assignments and her exclusion from a list of assigned appraisers in May 2022 served as evidence of the county’s intent to sever her employment.

Doe also mentioned Hatter’s request for three vehicles for the tax assessment office, although he omitted a vehicle for her use.

In early September 2022, her resignation appeared on a personnel action report for a Schuylkill County Commissioners meeting. Doe told Commissioner Gary Hess that she hadn’t resigned. The resignation was discussed at the meeting, but not voted on. Doe emailed Hatter and Whelan, emphasizing she wasn’t resigning, using her personal address since the county allegedly disabled her work email.

Hatter allegedly advised Doe to file a grievance with her union. However, the lawsuit contends Hatter disregarded the proper grievance procedure that mandated providing a grievance form or initiating a conversation to resolve the issue. Doe said she eventually filed a grievance, but never received a Loudermill Hearing or reinstatement.