A former employee of the New Jersey Treasury Department, who alleges she was constructively discharged after filing a sexual harassment complaint against a supervisor, is seeking to block the state from enforcing confidentiality agreements that her lawyer claims bar plaintiffs from discussing their cases.

The state, meanwhile, denies that the agreements operate the way the plaintiff alleges in the Oct. 29 motion. The plaintiff's underlying harassment claims have been disputed as well.

In her lawsuit, the former Treasury employee, Victoriya Usachenok, claims she was effectively fired in June 2016 after she divulged to her husband details of the sexual harassment claims she lodged against the supervisor, identified as John May, and allegations that a Treasury affirmative action investigator, Bulisa Sanders, failed to conduct a proper investigation.

The underlying case currently is in the discovery phase.

On Monday, though, Usachenok's lawyers filed a motion in Mercer County Superior Court, where the case is venued, seeking an order blocking the state from enforcing orders that they say block plaintiffs, or would-be plaintiffs, from discussing their cases publicly.

Usachenok's lead attorney, Christopher Eibeler, said the motion is tentatively scheduled to be heard on Nov. 30.

A response to the motion has not yet been filed, said Eibeler, of Smith Eibeler in Holmdel.

But the state Attorney General's Office said in a statement that the motion “is founded on a misinterpretation of the reach and intent of the state's confidentiality directive.”

The statements continues, ”The privacy of EEO/AA complaints and the directive not to speak with others about investigations of same is set forth in NJAC4A:7-3(j), but that directive is intended as an internal policy to promote workplace harmony and encourage employees to report EEO complaints.

“It does not bar a plaintiff or co-workers from discussing alleged harassment publicly or with counsel,” the statement adds. “An explanatory letter to plaintiff's counsel will be provided shortly.”

Usachenok alleges that after she complained to Sanders about May's conduct, she was forced to sign a “confidentiality directive” that forbade her from discussing the allegations.

“The issue before the court is of a significant public concern because it involves an unlawful policy and practice  of the state … to systematically interfere with the rights of victims and witnesses in connection with investigations of harassment,” Eibeler said in the motion.

“It has been learned through the lawsuit that the state maintains a policy and practice of threatening employees with disciplinary action up to and including termination, if they disclose any aspect of any harassment investigation of which they are aware and/or participate as a victim or witness,” Eibeler wrote.

The motion claims that the confidentiality directives violate employees' First Amendment rights.

“The government infringes upon the constitutional rights of a public employee if it restricts them from discussing matters of public concern,” Eibeler said in the motion.

The underlying lawsuit generally asserts that May subjected Usachenok to unwanted sexual  advances, and that Sanders failed to fully investigate those claims.

In an answer to the complaint, the state denies Usachenok's  allegations.