Judge denies motion by Oberlin for a mistrial…trying to dodge the upcoming punitive damages…http://www.toledoblade.com/local/courts/2019/06/11/oberlin-college-files-motion-for-retrial-gibson-bakery-suit/stories/20190611182
I think this is going to hurt. The Sandusky shame hurt Penn State. It put a pall on the enthusiasm of going there. They started giving out merit money more generously after the publicity, though in small amounts. It used to be getting anything from them very rare. I guess they had it to give since they weren’t going to be recruiting football players those years ( not a fact—being facetious here). It was a nice unexpected benefit for some cousins who frankly were worried about getting accepted!
So, yes, it’s going to affect Oberlin adversely. They have enough endowment that the current judgement doesn’t affect it even as much as a bad day in the markets which happens a lot, but the punitive award might pack a bigger wallop. But I think the real hit is going to be in applications and students accepting.
Gibson’s has had a great relationship with the college and its students for decades, and supplied most of the baked goods to the college.The city of Oberlin is pretty much a one industry town- the college.
A black male student tried to shoplift(this was established weeks after the incident which occurred in November, 2016) from Gibson’s, and one of the owners wrestled him outside of the store. Two female black students saw them fighting, thought a white man was beating up a black student, and tried to help him. Shortly after the incident, and before the shoplifting was established, some students thought the store owner was at fault, and started a demonstration outside of the store. Some student(not the college) composed a leaflet accusing the store of being racist. They copied it on a college copier. How could any college which believes in free speech reasonably prevent adult students from demonstrating or using its copier? In fact, some Oberlinians believe the store profiles blacks, and makes black customers feel uncomfortable. Why the defense lawyers did not call these people is not good lawyering in my opinion. Truth is a defense to a libel and slander suit, which is the suit the Gibsons brought.
.Dean of Students Raimondo heard about the demonstration, and attended to see what was happening, and to perhaps, prevent any disruptions… There was testimony that she passed out some of the leaflets. There was also some email banter by Raimondo or others about Gibsons, but that was not the alleged defamation which was the subject of the suit.
To prevent possible conflict, the college stopped ordering from Gibsons for about a month after the incident, until it was established what had happened. There was testimony that before the facts of shoplifting were established, the students might have thrown Gibson’s pastries on the floor. Once the facts were established, the Gibson/college relationship continued as before until the Gibsons started their lawsuit in November, 2017. Then, the college stopped ordering from Gibsons. If your neighbor was a baker and sued you, would you still buy their baked goods?
Because Raimondo(an employee) allegedly passed out the leaflet(not knowing what it could lead to), this made the college a target in the suit. The only damage Gibsons suffered was losing business for a month. If your neighbor wins the suit against you, should you be liable for their lost business from you and others for 30 years? That’s what happened to the college. .And, the college and its dining service had NO CONTRACT at all with Gibson’s. It could have arranged for someone else to supply its baked goods for any reason at all. An $11,000,000 judgment is totally excessive. There are many people who are killed or severely injured by drunk drivers who received much less. On top of this, there might be punitive damages.
Well, Oberlin’s attorneys were horrible if ^ was more the case than the way this tale has been spun. Acc to the news, and I well know that things like this often get incorrectly reported, all three students were accused of theft and they pled guilty to all charges and even vindicated the bakery of everything including any racism. These students were well represented by legal counsel provided by the college, so that they were not pushed into all of this without protection.
I agree $11 million is excessive. I have the feeling that people are fed up with SJW antics and whatever happened here fell into that category, justified or not. The legal team Oberlin certainly did as bad of a job I’ve ever seen in this case.
Sadly, the school is going to pay dearly for this for a while.
The $11M was actual damages, so had to be proven. Lost business, lost reputation, physical injury to the owner, etc. The penalty is where the judge/jury decided who did things deliberately and how much they should be punished.
I don’t understand the college paying for the representation of the students if the students were off campus and acting on their own.
recitation of the “facts” of the case is exactly why we have jury trials…each side can find a way to make the facts fit their side of the story and the rules of evidence, standards of proof, jury instructions etc…provide a framework for the judge and jury to assess and weight the facts. For example, the statement that some Oberlinians believe the store profiles blacks is an opinion and unless those individuals are experts in the field of profiling their beliefs/feelings aren’t admissible because they’re just opinions and the prosecution would bring their Oberlinians who believe the opposite and it’s a wash…he said, she said.
This was a civil trial. No Prosecution.
Different rules, different standards of proof.
The two female students were charged with assault, and all three entered into pleas where they said Gibson’s was not at fault.
I still think there should have been witnesses who experienced bad treatment there, because the Gibsons alleged that being called a racist business was defamatory.
Defense counsel also did not adequately attack the plaintiff’s witness on damages, who was allowed to present calculations over 30 years totaling over $12,000,000. Instead, they presented a witness who said the whole business was worth only $35,000, and that should be a cap on the damages.
My understanding is that a college trustee(not the college) paid legal expenses for at least one of the students.
Regardless of whether civil or criminal the standard of proof, rules of evidence etc…still apply. The standard of proof isn’t as high but it still must be met.
Not true, both females were with the male student, and were also arrested. They admitted to that fact.The white man also wasn’t beating up a student, he was trying to restrain him.
What Oberlinians?, other than students? If the college had ANY evidence of profiling, they would have raised it. Instead all of the evidence pointed the other way. Having students testify that they “believe” the store profiles blacks, but haven’t actually experienced it or saw it, would have been a very, very bad idea.
In fact, in the punitive damage hearing, Gibson’s lawyers brought into evidence the e-mails being sent to Raimondo by alumni and locals, in the days after the event, claiming Gibson was absolutely not racist. That she ignored these e-mails is one way to prove “malice” on the schools part. That e-mail banter could cost the school millions.
The punitive damages hearing started yesterday, and you can find more details online.
@gratefulalum : Your above post (#42) shows the type of misinformation which is easily shown to be inaccurate that might cause a judge & jury to mistrust Oberlin’s position in this matter.
The size of the verdict seems excessive. However, the bakery owner was restraining a shop lifter. It had nothing to do with racism.It seems that the bakery was libeled and its business damaged.
Oberlin defense team erred by lowballing their estimate - by claiming the bakery was only worth $35K they most likely alienated the jury. It was like saying “this is a worthless hole in the wall business, who cares.”
Other than as a music conservatory, this matter defines Oberlin College in a nutshell.
Based on the allegations shared in this thread & in articles cited in this thread, the amount of the verdict seems justified. And the court agrees as this case is now in the punitive damages phase.
I think Oberlin deserves the shaming given what’s I’ve read about the case and their defense is quite shabby. Bad lawyers, Bad PR people and bad neighborhood liaisons. $11mill sounds too high to me too but that may be minuscule compared to what’s to come.
My guess is that offering such witnesses would have opened the door to the Plaintiffs putting on similar opinion evidence (assuming the court found any such testimony probative (admissible) on the questions presented to the jury. My assumption is that the college wanted to limit as much such testimony as they could, because the objective facts and the general tenor of opinion were not in the college’s favor.
Oberlin probably couldn’t provide evidence the bakery was racist. Maybe they could have provided evidence of other shoplifters who were mistreated.
These shoplifters weren’t mistreated.