Jury awards Gibson’s Bakery $11 million against Oberlin College

Not sure why folks are blaming the legal team-- they had a bad hand to play (the facts were against them), and likely did the best that they could. Sure, ‘bad PR’ folks but in reality it’s a bad Raimondo (who is representative of the Admin). If the college wanted to accept responsibility and throw themselves on the mercy of the jury to reduce punitive, they shoulda fired the VP right after the verdict. Introducing a new segment during orientation (‘Community 101: An Obie’s Guide to Being a Good Neighbor’) ain’t gonna cut it.

(Part of punitive is to show that it won’t happen again, and one way to do that is clean house.)

one example of Oberlin’s legal team being “bad” (choosing a strange legal strategy) is that Oberlin’s Acting General Counsel sent a mass email out to alumni criticizing the jury (saying the jury disregarded the evidence) right after the verdict was decided.
This same jury is still going to decide punitive damages.
The jury is not sequestered - you can be sure they read it too.
What a great way to antagonize them further.

With respect to “Oberlin’s legal team”, it appears (at least from the outside) that the college is taking an active role in directing courtroom and communications strategy rather than leaving it to their external trial lawyers (who would certainly advise against sending out an email criticizing the jury verdict). Even a very competent trial counsel can be hamstrung in such circumstances.

It almost appears that the college wanted to lose, but have very low damages awarded. That would have allowed them to continue defending their students’ rights to “free speech” and apparent desire to shoplift without serious consequences (remember their attempts to insist that Gibsons refrain from prosecuting “first time” offenders, if the college was to order baked goods in future).

Hence their foolish insistence that the bakery was only worth $35K - maybe they thought the jury would just multiply that by 10 rather than ignoring it entirely and looking only at the Gibsons’ valuation.

Does anyone at Oberlin study organization dysfunction? It sounds as if the administration – or at least those specific administrators who chose to go forward to trial instead of settling beforehand – would have benefited from hearing opinions of those outside their echo chamber.

I wonder what the board of trustees think about it, but I can guess since one of them paid the legal expenses of the primary shoplifter.

To clarify a point raised earlier, yes, the trustee was the one who paid those expenses but the university itself paid for a car service to the city for that student to meet with the attorney(s).

I wonder how much the insurance policy covers. Often the offer to settle is the amount of the policy.

If it became known that ‘everyone gets a freebee at Gibson’s’ well things could get out of hand real fast. How will they prove it was the second time Johnny was shoplifting if they have no record of the first one? Really, a ridiculous request by Oberlin to include in an ‘agreement.’

Gibson’s might not have the option of not prosecuting shoplifters. Criminal decisions are made by the city/state not by individual shop owners. The businesses may have agreed to report ALL crimes.

The below testimony is from what I have read the most illustrative of why Oberlin was found accountable. Their administrators are their own worst enemy and their own words dictated the outcome. Worth reading if you want to understand the verdict.

"ELYRIA — Meredith Raimondo repeatedly testified Tuesday that she did not have control over Oberlin College students during the 2016 protests in front of Gibson’s Bakery.

However, an attorney for the bakery questioned Oberlin College’s vice president and dean of students on several incidents that he believed showed that she did have “control and influence” over the students and could have stopped the protests.

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.”

The rift between the bakery and the college began in 2016 when a student tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID and shoplift from Allyn Gibson, who is the son of the bakery’s owner, David Gibson. Allyn Gibson followed the student out of the store and the two got into a physical altercation.

Two other students got involved, and police have said when they arrived the three students were hitting Allyn Gibson while he was on the ground.

Allyn Gibson is white and the students are black, and the incident became racially charged. All three students pleaded guilty in August to misdemeanor charges and read statements into the record acknowledging that Allyn Gibson was within his right to detain the shoplifter and that his actions were not racially motivated."

The strategic mettle of OC’s administration will now be tested. The bakery’s business prospects are in no way adversely impacted by the notoriety associated with the ongoing imbroglio of protracted defendant’s appeals. The business’s prestige is perhaps enhanced as a “David” figure. Any possible relief OC might receive in prolonged adjudication is gobbled up in an offset of insurmountable negative PR.

Prudent voices would counsel settlement in the upper range of the total awards, embrace the bakery and the community and focus on education.

yeah, but at that point the verdict is in. And we have no way of knowing if outside counsel agreed to the mass e-mail. Perhaps it was just arrogance/stupidity/naivete of the school Admin, which includes the (acting) GC.

Outisde counsel can only advise the client. If the client wants to continue to do ‘bad’ things, then they will.

I’m sure that the college’s bullying tactics (‘drop the complaint/charges and we’ll do business again…’) also rubbed the jury the wrong way.

Gibson’s had no choice but to report the actions of the three convicted students. They were underage, and have to report to retain their liquor license.

By the way, I have now come to the conclusion that this school deserves every bit of their self inflicted misery. Their general counsel puts out a public statement relating the jury botched the evidence after the verdict, so the same jury sitting to decide punitive damages is now aware of the complete lack of contrition on Oberlin’s part. And then they argue that a large judgment will financially break them (with a billion in assets). And to top it off Oberlin claims that a large judgment will hurt the students, the very same group they aver they have no control over? Why would a jury want to look out for students that cannot behave properly and reward them? I wonder if Oberlin is preparing for a future with overall enrollment of 2200. This isn’t mean speculation- it reflects what happened at Evergreen and Missouri.

Cinnamon, there is a lot to admire with traditional liberals, with their focus on due process and individual rights- concepts which drove the civil rights gains in the 60s. The hard left at Oberlin is not liberal in any sense; they are bound up in group identity above all else and are intolerant, and frankly, as seen here, awful neighbors.

An optic of the case that is due clarification is who the bakery’s actual institutional customer was. This is a distinction with a difference as its specific nature gives arise to one of the claims and yields insight as to the character and disposition of the parties.

The college has a food service contractor who per reports was the actual bakery institutional customer. The college was not a party to their arrangement hence the claim of torturous interference.

Although we do not know the privileged communications between Oberlin officials and their outside counsel, it looks like Oberlin had “bad” lawyers because they did not convince Oberlin to settle the case.

Wow.

Wow Wee.

Found this article that contains an account of the testimony yesterday during the punitive damages portion of the trial:

http://www.chroniclet.com/cops-and-courts/2019/06/12/Gibson-s-Bakery-v-Oberlin-College-Plaintiffs-rest-in-second-day-of-punitive-phase.html

Settlement time?

Well, Oberlin attorneys are certainly singing a different tune now.

In a town that size, damaging the school may do harm to local businesses as they are a major source of business. I think the award sent the right message loud and clear.

@ivycover said, “The college has a food service contractor who per reports was the actual bakery institutional customer. The college was not a party to their arrangement hence the claim of torturous interference.”

I read in reports that Oberlin College demanded that the food service contractor no longer use the bakery for the products delivered to Oberlin.

I have no idea, but is that ration of 2850 to 1100 employees a little off? Seems like a huge number of employees, but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen figures broken down that way for other schools.

Interesting tactic - I guess Oberlin’s attorney is trying to plant the seed in the jurors’ minds that they shouldn’t be too mean in assessing punitive damages because they might bankrupt the school.

Optimal “settlement time” has passed. Why did these lawyers let the case go to trial ? Did they press Oberlin to settle ?