A judge just cut the verdict in half, mostly based on limits set on such lawsuits.
Responding to Ruken:
The College acts through intermediaries. There seems to be evidence that the College, through its employees and officials:
-
printed up pamphlets that accused the Bakery of racism
-
was represented by a dean at the protests, where the protestors accused the bakery of racial profiling and racism;
-
gave class credit to the students who went to the protests and accused the bakery of racism.
I appreciate that those facts may have been in dispute, but that’s what juries are for: to listen to contested facts and make a final determination of the facts.
In this case, those three facts, if accepted by the jury, would seem to support a finding of libel.
And yes, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the senior administration of the College directed or participated in those actions, but that doesn’t let the College off the hook.
The doctrine of vicarious liability says that an employer can be held liable for the tortious acts of its employees. For example, if Joe Deliveryman runs you down while driving a truck for his employer, ABC Deliveries, both Joe and ABC Deliveries are potentially liable to you for the injuries: Joe directly, and ABC Deliveries vicariously. ABC can’t avoid liability by saying that they didn’t tell Joe to run you down. They gave Joe the truck and told him to drive it, which caused the injuries to you.
So, the College could be vicariously liable for the libel perpetuated by some of its employees, even if the higher admins of the College didn’t know about it and hadn’t directed it.
I don’t think that is what is happening though. In this case it was not racial - the clerk saw two bottles secreted (clearly not well) away. He apprehended a thief - not wise, but not illegal and sure as hell not racist.
Students took an alternate view and protested as is their right and I support that even though I disagree with them. Individual faculty lent material assistance and support, again well within their rights.
The university as an institution** took a vocal and public stance that gave tremendous weight to the defamatory accusations of racism. The university, institutionally, was wrong to do so and was way out of line - just as they would be if the had punished the students because the institution disagreed.
As far as schools go the only chilling effect this should have is on taking a public stance against a private entity without sufficient information.
-
What was reported in this thread is that some employees allowed students to make photocopies of libelous flyers free of charge. Nobody has presented any evidence that said employees weren’t acting independently or thatthey were acting in a manner that serves a goal of the employer.
-
My employer is not liable for what I say at protests. Or what my boss says. I don’t see why anyone finds this relevant.
-
They gave credit to students to attend the protest, which is not itself libelous. What the students then choose to do is between the business and the students.
So what I’m guessing is that there was infact libel but we just have a case of shitty reporting. Although alternatives include no libel and the school having a shitty lawyer or a jury of one’s “peers” being about as terrifying as it sounds.
Are you a civil lawyer? Because, while shitty reporting is certainly a good possibility, the possibility also exists that your opinion on their liability may be in error.
Right. We’re just getting the summaries. We weren’t there in court, hearing exactly how everything happened. Was that one Assistant Dean just standing there, watching events? Or was she encouraging the students to say the racism things? Were College resources being used to encourage civil engagement by the students, or to support the racism allegations? Factual issues like that turn on credibility of witnesses, how the testimony hangs together, and so on.
And this was after the shoplifter tried using a fake ID.
Cite.
Given that an actual jury found them actually liable, I’m going with the latter.
Jury trials are SO yesterday, anyway. Everyone knows the path to real justice lies with star chambers of university officials passing judgement without due process.
If you go back to the Legal Insurrection site they actually have a near day to day recap of the trial.
Even better, just everyone start posting on social media and get everyone going.
That’s good, but still not as good as being there in the courtroom and hearing/seeing each witness testify. That’s the strength of the jury system, and also why it’s very difficult to overturn a jury’s factual findings.
I’ve read scads of court transcripts over the years. I’ve also been present in court and listened to and watched witnesses. The transcripts are never as illuminating as being there, seeing and hearing the witness.
Viva voce beats the transcript every time.
What’s been posted here is primarily quotes and summaries of the complaint, not any actual evidence presented in court. Given that employers are not automatically liable for actions/speech of their employees, then that is indeed shitty reporting.
True:
HERE is a link to an article which goes over testimony from Meredith Raimondo, the schools vice president. She was a witness and gave testimony over 2 days and it looks like her testimony was the most damaging to the colleges case.
"
Raimondo took the stand for a second day Tuesday as an adverse witness, meaning her testimony was compelled by subpoena and not voluntary, in the civil trial between Gibson’s Bakery and Oberlin College. Gibson’s sued the college and Raimondo for libel, interference with business relationships, interference with contracts, intentional infliction of emotional distress and trespass in 2017. The bakery also is suing the college for negligent hiring, retention and supervision.
Lee Plakas, the lead attorney for Gibson’s Bakery in the case, repeatedly insinuated that Raimondo could have influenced the students who protested in front of the bakery Nov. 10 and 11, 2016, due to her role as dean of students.
Raimondo, however, disagreed repeatedly with that statement, saying she has “a leadership role” but wouldn’t say she has “control of the students.”
Plakas highlighted incidents that he contended prove Raimondo did have control over the actions of students.
One of them was an email Raimondo sent to Oberlin College Student Senate members after the second day of protests saying she would “encourage folks not to go to the protests downtown (Nov. 12).” Raimondo also said in the message that at that point, the demonstrations were “driving Gibson’s business,” which Plakas took to mean “you (Raimondo) weren’t happy that there was business now being given to Gibson’s for people who supported them in response (to the protests).”
Plakas noted students did not protest Nov. 12.
Another example he gave of Raimondo’s influence regarded the student senate resolution that urged students to boycott the bakery because it had “a history of racial profiling.”
The resolution hung in Wilder Hall at the college for a year after the student senate passed it, Plakas said. After Gibson’s filed the lawsuit against the college, Raimondo asked the students to take it down, Plakas said.
“Sir, I don’t have control over the students,” Raimondo said. “I would not agree with that.”
“After you asked them to take it down, they took it down,” Plakas said.
“I know they took it down,” Raimondo said. “I can’t speak as to why they chose to do that.”
What other reason would the students have to remove it, Plakas asked.
“I don’t have any information about their thinking,” Raimondo said.
The testimony later shifted to Raimondo’s interactions with other administrators at the college and whether their “ill-will” or “malice” toward Gibson’s caused them to take sides in the protests and the aftermath.
Emails and text messages shared among them played a big factor in the testimony.
Plakas read the jury an email from Oberlin College Vice President of Communications Ben Jones.
“We should just give all business to Leo at IGA. Better donuts anyway,” Jones’ email said. “All these idiots complaining about the college hurting a ‘small local business’ are conveniently leaving out their massive (relative to the town) conglomerate and price gouging on rents and parking and the predatory behavior towards most other local business. (Expletive) ’em.
“I wanted this to work out in a restorative way with shared responsibility (albeit generous on our part) because it’s what’s best for the town. But they’ve made their bed now…”
Tita Reed, special assistant to the president for community and government relations for the college, then replied in the email thread: “100%!!!”
Plakas asked Raimondo if, after seeing the emails, she told them that their responses were inappropriate and asked whether she had tried to “de-escalate” the situation.
“I wouldn’t have considered that an appropriate response,” Raimondo said.
“You don’t think it would be appropriate to de-escalate?” Plakas asked.
“No, I did not,” she said.
Plakas then circled back to the issue of whether Raimondo controlled the students by saying that she actually felt she controlled them as if they were on a leash.
“I assure you I did not,” Raimondo said.
That’s when Plakas read an exchange between Raimondo and other administrators about Roger Copeland, a professor with the college who had been critical of Oberlin College’s handling of the protests at Gibson’s.
“(Expletive) him,” Raimondo said in a text message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”
Plakas asked Raimondo if she felt that had been an appropriate response.
“I regret that the jury has seen that unprofessional language,” Raimondo said. “This is a private text message exchange between friends, and sometimes, in my private communications, I speak that way. I do not speak that way in public or professional contexts.”
"
"
I hope my above post helps to answer that question.
HERE is another article, where the college attorney, during trial and after the jury had found the college libel, but still had not slapped them with the massive fine, admits it “learned it’s lesson”:
"
Oberlin College’s attorneys, meanwhile, tried to convince the jury that the college has learned its lesson and is being a better community partner by educating its students on how to be good neighbors and residents.
Oberlin attorney Rachelle Kuznicki Zidar had a different take, telling jurors that her client heard the message they sent when they ruled against the college.
“You have sent a profound message,” she told the jury. “Colleges across the nation have heard you” and Oberlin College in particular “never wants to sit at this table ever again.”
To prevent a repeat of what occurred at the college between November 2016 and January 2017, Zidar said Oberlin College will monitor more closely the activities of student organizations including the Student Senate, scrutinize how student activities funds are used, monitor internal communications and explain to students and the campus community its expectations for their behavior.
“Bad conduct has already been discouraged by the verdict you have rendered,” Zidar said. “We want to repair the harm.”
"
Right after the libel decision was handed out by the jury and the Gibsons awarded $11 million, the second part of the trial started. The one where the decision to award another $44 million came from. This part of the trial should just have been about money and finding out how much money the college has and if they could indeed afford another $44 million.
Well it turns out Oberlin couldnt keep its mouth shut and sent out a letter slamming the juries decision and the email made it into court and was probably what cost them the additional money.
That email, slamming the juries decision, was presented to the SAME JURY, which had just previously ruled against them.
If you had any brains you DON’T slam and go after the jury who had just ruled against you.
More than what was SAID, but what about what was SEEN and the general atmosphere of the courtroom.
Every day of that trial (which lasted april thru June) in the courtroom was the 90 year old matriarch of the family, sitting right behind the Gibsons box with his walker in hand and a brace around his neck. A neckbrace from an injury sustained because of a confrontation over his supposed racism. He was a little old man who had run a respected family business all his life. You couldnt help but not be sympathetic.
On the other side was an obviously arrogant college administrator and her legal team.
I would have given anything to see the look on their faces as the juries decision was read.
Yes, Oberlin was totally at fault and got their well-deserved karma…the usual suspects are just piling on you because of your past posting history and political slant.
Well, personally I “piled on” because the writer of the article he was using as a source blatantly shoehorned a well-known racist dogwhistle into the article.
But yeah, Oberlin appear to have majorly screwed the pooch on this one.
Well, it says that they plead guilty and in their plea colloquy said that it was not a racial thing. However, it could have been a condition of his plea deal that he “acknowledge” that.
I’m with you; I do not think it was racial, but simply because the defendant said it in a plea deal doesn’t make it so.
Yeah, I think the real quarrel was against the college administrators not the shoplifters. I read how the shoplifter had a good defense attorney (which the college paid for) and admitting fault might have been part of the plea bargain.
The college administration encouraged and pushed the students into demonstrating, making unjustified accusations, and personal assaults on the family and then refused to admit they were wrong and refused to tell the students to back off even a year later and then got arrogant in negotiations telling them to never call the cops on a student again and such.
If you listen to the new college president she still wont admit they were in the wrong and instead says it was all about free speech.
You would think by now after Duke University getting sued over the lacrosse student scandal and the professor at the University of Missouri getting fired for egging on students in 2016 they would get the message. In the future they should warn students that actions have consequences (such as handing out pamphlets calling a person racist) and college staff should stay out of it.