The US attorney for North Carolina’s Middle District is taking steps to get a recent libel lawsuit against US Rep. Pat Harrigan dismissed. Multiple court documents filed Thursday argued that Harrigan was conducting official business protected from legal liability when he posted challenged statements on social media.
Former Wake Forest University athletic trainer Bridget Sullivan filed suit against Harrigan on Oct. 3 in Forsyth County Superior Court. She complained that Harrigan had libeled her in September when he posted on social media that she had been fired from her job.
Sullivan’s negative online comments after conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination had attracted attention from Harrigan, a Republican representing the state’s 10th Congressional District. Harrigan posted online that he had contacted Wake Forest to complain about Sullivan’s comments. He followed up with an update that suggested Sullivan had been fired after Harrigan’s complaint.
One month after Sullivan filed suit, US Attorney Clifton Barrett filed a notice of removal Thursday moving the case from state to federal court. Barrett’s office followed up with a motion asking to substitute the United States of America for Harrigan as the defendant in the case. Barrett also filed a motion to have the case dismissed.
“The United States should be substituted as the defendant in this action because the statements about which Plaintiff Bridget Sullivan complains were made during the course and scope of Congressman Harrigan’s office and employment as a Member of the United States House of Representatives (‘House’),” according to a memorandum from Barrett’s office. The Federal Tort Claims Act “requires that the United States be substituted as the defendant where, as here, the ‘defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.’”
If the federal court approves the motion to substitute, then Sullivan’s case should be dismissed, the US attorney argued in a separate court filing. Sullivan “has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (‘FTCA’), and because these claims are barred by that Act.”
“Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries primarily arising out of social media posts that the Congressman made on his official X account stating that Sullivan was fired by her employer, which she denies,” according to the court filing. “The Complaint asserts causes of action for libel per se and libel per quod, as well as a claim for punitive damages under North Carolina law.”
“The FTCA is the ‘exclusive’ remedy for money damages for alleged personal injury caused by ‘the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment,’” the court filing added.
“Upon substituting the United States as the defendant in this case, this Court should dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies pursuant to the FTCA,” the US attorney argued.
“Nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies,” the court filing added. “The United States House of Representatives has also not received any administrative claim from Plaintiff. Without proof that Plaintiff properly presented her claims under the FTCA, the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Even if Sullivan had presented her libel claims to the US House, “this Court would still lack subject matter jurisdiction because the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for these claims,” the US attorney argued.
Nor can Sullivan seek the punitive damages she seeks in her lawsuit, the US attorney added. “Under the FTCA, … the United States is not liable for punitive damages, and the ‘only relief’ available under the statute is ‘money damages.’ This remedy ‘for injury or loss of property … arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government … is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages.’”
Sullivan had worked with the Wake Forest women’s soccer team as an assistant athletic trainer. On Sept. 11, after Kirk’s shooting death, she posted on her personal Instagram account: “He had it coming. He had it coming.”
The following day, “an unknown source juxtaposed Plaintiff’s post with her online biography at Wake Forest University and her school photo,” according to her original complaint.
On the same day, Harrigan posted “contacted @WakeForest regarding these reports… Anything less than firing her is an endorsement of it.”
“That afternoon into the weekend, Plaintiff and Wake Forest began receiving numerous safety threats and other derogatory comments, many of which demanded that Plaintiff be fired or harmed,” according to Sullivan’s complaint.
On Sept. 14, “after discussions between Plaintiff and Wake Forest about the continued safety concerns for Plaintiff as an employee, Plaintiff and Wake Forest mutually agreed that it would be best to part ways,” the complaint continued. “Wake Forest University did not fire or terminate Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, no Wake Forest representative issued such a statement to Defendant, to the school at large, to the press, or to the public. Such a statement was and is false.”
On Sept. 16, Harrigan posted: “UPDATE: I’m happy to report that after I contacted @WakeForest, Bridget has been FIRED for celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Even better, the university is giving full support to students launching a @TPUSA chapter.”
Kirk led the group Turning Point USA before his death.
Multiple news organizations reported on Harrigan’s post. “The news articles all relied on Defendant as the source of the false ‘firing’ allegation, which quickly spread to an even wider national audience in the five days following Plaintiff’s departure from Wake Forest,” according to Sullivan’s complaint.
“Defendant’s false statement has harmed Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation, and exposed Plaintiff to ridicule, hatred, contempt, and safety threats,” the complaint continued. “Defendant intentionally published his statement to numerous third persons to inflict such harm to Plaintiff, among other reasons.”
Sullivan’s lawsuit asked for compensatory and punitive damages of at least $75,000.
The post US attorney seeks dismissal of libel suit against Harrigan appeared first on Carolina Journal.