House Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) addresses the media Jan. 6 before the start of a closed-door hearing. | AP Photo Benghazi committee asks judge to toss lawsuit from ex-staffer

The House Benghazi Committee is asking a federal judge to toss out an employment lawsuit filed by a former GOP panel investigator, asserting constitutional protections for congressional speech while arguing for the suit to be dismissed.

House lawyers representing the panel on Friday filed a motion to dismiss Bradley Podliska’s case because the speech and debate clause widely protects members of Congress and their staff from being sued for actions they undertake for official duties, including their interactions with Podliska. They also argued that Podliska had acknowledged that he and his Benghazi panel supervisors often clashed — undercutting any claims of discrimination because such disputes between a staffer and employer would be cause for termination, they said.


“Plaintiff and his supervisors simply did not see eye to eye on the direction of the Select Committee’s investigation or plaintiff’s role in setting that direction,” the filing says. “These same allegations however, reveal why plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims … in which he alleges discrimination and retaliation.”

Podliska, an Air Force reservist, alleges the panel discriminated and retaliated against him because he took military duty leave to serve several weeks overseas — and because he would not tailor his investigation to center on Hillary Clinton. The committee disputes both accounts, arguing a panel run by ex-military members would not punish someone for serving, and that Podliska himself had partisan tendencies.

Also on Monday, Podliska’s lawyers moved to seal some personal contact information about Podliska originally included in the Friday filing. The judge agreed.

House lawyers argued the court lacks jurisdiction over Podliska’s case because the speech and debate clause provides and staff with “immunity from suit for actions predicated on legislative activities, protection from having their legislative activities used as evidence against them, and privilege against being questioned or compelled to disclose information about their legislative activities.”

They said Podliska’s acknowledgment that he was not dismissed only because of his military obligations protects the panel’s actions against him.

“Plantiff admits that, in addition to his supervisors’ alleged military animus, one of the motivating factors for the alleged adverse actions was Plaintiff’s refusal to ‘go along with’ the Select Committee’s investigative focus,” the court document reads. “Under [the law] however… [Podliska] must establish military animus was the sole reason for the adverse action.”