Ohio Jury Delivers $11 Million Verdict Against Oberlin College

canada-man · Jun 9, 2019

Punitive damage phase to start next Tuesday, which could increase the damages to $33 million.

The verdict sends a strong message that colleges and universities cannot simply wind up and set loose student social justice warriors and then wash their hands of the consequences. In this case, a wholly innocent 5th-generation bakery was falsely accused of being racist and having a history racial profiling after stopping three black Oberlin College students from shoplifting. The students eventually pleaded guilty, but not before large protests and boycotts intended to destroy the bakery and defame the owners. The jury appears to have accepted that Oberlin College facilitated the wrongful conduct against the bakery.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...ns-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/

Darts · Jun 9, 2019

canada-man said:
stopping three black Oberlin College students from shoplifting.

If this was in Ontario and the store was the LCBO, they would just let the shoplifters go.

oldjones · Jun 10, 2019

Just to point out that the OP's source eventuially makes clear that the bakery's lawsuit was against Meredith Raimondo, as Dean of Students, not Oberlin College itself

(clarification) Meredith Raimondo was held liable on the libel and interference with business relations, but not intentional infliction of emotional distress. By stipulation, the college is responsible for any amounts awarded against her, so she will not pay anything out of pocket.

The costly verdict sends a clear message to colleges and universities that they cannot afford to allow their staff or their students to speak as they wish, and that if they do not restrict their free expression they may find themselves paying a high price indeed.

onthebottom · Jun 10, 2019

oldjones said:
Just to point out that the OP's source eventuially makes clear that the bakery's lawsuit was against Meredith Raimondo, as Dean of Students, not Oberlin College itself

The costly verdict sends a clear message to colleges and universities that they cannot afford to allow their staff or their students to speak as they wish, and that if they do not restrict their free expression they may find themselves paying a high price indeed.

The unthinking bully mob is what you are defending, it’s Evergreen college again.

mandrill · Jun 10, 2019

onthebottom said:
The unthinking bully mob is what you are defending, it’s Evergreen college again.

OJ's not defending them. He appears to be agreeing with the verdict. As would most sensible people.

oldjones · Jun 11, 2019

oagre said:
OJ's not defending them. He appears to be agreeing with the verdict. As would most sensible people.

Thanks, it's nice to see the blue again. I haven't enough knowledge of the facts to second guess the verdict either way. It is what it is, certainly costly. A very clear message that Colleges and Universities cannot afford to allow their staff and students unlimited free expression, or it will cost them. I believe the amount might triple in the coming punitive damages hearing. Which means the college will not merely pay, but be severely punished for allowing free expression by its students and staff. Apart from the one Dean, they were not sued, and none were made to pay as individuals, only the college that failed to muzzle and restrict them. Of course all will suffer as the College struggles for the money to pay the bakery.

My sense is that American civil juries are notorious for awarding extreme damages, do you as a lawyer have thoughts on the potential for appeal of the amount?

I'm sure the recently-so-vocal defenders of free speech will stick up for it here, so I leave that noble cause to them.

mandrill · Jun 11, 2019

oldjones said:
Thanks, it's nice to see the blue again. I haven't enough knowledge of the facts to second guess the verdict either way. It is what it is, certainly costly. A very clear message that Colleges and Universities cannot afford to allow their staff and students unlimited free expression, or it will cost them. I believe the amount might triple in the coming punitive damages hearing. Which means the college will not merely pay, but be severely punished for allowing free expression by its students and staff. Apart from the one Dean, they were not sued, and none were made to pay as individuals, only the college that failed to muzzle and restrict them. Of course all will suffer as the College struggles for the money to pay the bakery.

My sense is that American civil juries are notorious for awarding extreme damages, do you as a lawyer have thoughts on the potential for appeal of the amount?

I'm sure the recently-so-vocal defenders of free speech will stick up for it here, so I leave that noble cause to them.

I have no idea whether US damages awards can be effectively appealed. I assume that the Dean was sued as a representative party for the college as a whole and the instiution crossed the line and did not only allow free speech by its community members, but actively advocated against the plaintiffs.

Of course, the "free speech citizens' caucus" will not be as pleased when the same defamation laws are applied to Fox news or the innumerable Far right internet blogs in similar circumstances.

Butler1000 · Jun 11, 2019

oldjones said:
Thanks, it's nice to see the blue again. I haven't enough knowledge of the facts to second guess the verdict either way. It is what it is, certainly costly. A very clear message that Colleges and Universities cannot afford to allow their staff and students unlimited free expression, or it will cost them. I believe the amount might triple in the coming punitive damages hearing. Which means the college will not merely pay, but be severely punished for allowing free expression by its students and staff. Apart from the one Dean, they were not sued, and none were made to pay as individuals, only the college that failed to muzzle and restrict them. Of course all will suffer as the College struggles for the money to pay the bakery.

My sense is that American civil juries are notorious for awarding extreme damages, do you as a lawyer have thoughts on the potential for appeal of the amount?

I'm sure the recently-so-vocal defenders of free speech will stick up for it here, so I leave that noble cause to them.

Oj I'm betting for this kind of award it wasn't about just allowing free expression but leading the charge, allowing use of resources, encouraging the mob.....

Me thinks they jumped in due to an administration scared of a student group but that doesn't matter. This institution tried to put someone out of business for no good reason. Failed to be an example as an institution of a measured response.

This will send a clear message that activists need to stop thinking schools are there to promote politics instead of education.

Butler1000 · Jun 11, 2019

oagre said:
I have no idea whether US damages awards can be effectively appealed. I assume that the Dean was sued as a representative party for the college as a whole and the instiution crossed the line and did not only allow free speech by its community members, but actively advocated against the plaintiffs.

Of course, the "free speech citizens' caucus" will not be as pleased when the same defamation laws are applied to Fox news or the innumerable Far right internet blogs in similar circumstances.

Or to all other news outlets. It would mean they would have to do real research and actually confirm a story before publishing.

How terrible is that?

Darts · Jun 11, 2019

John Legend is asking/demanding the film industry to stop doing business in states that are pro-life. This will threaten people's livelihoods and is a form of blackmail. John Legend should be sued as well and be made to pay damages to the people he hurt.

mandrill · Jun 11, 2019

Darts said:
John Legend is asking/demanding the film industry to stop doing business in states that are pro-life. This will threaten people's livelihoods and is a form of blackmail. John Legend should be sued as well and be made to pay damages to the people he hurt.

Did you read the initial post, which laid out specific elements of the tort of defamation?

How is asking a commercial sector to boycott states which are "pro life" (as you term it) defamatory at law?

You've misunderstood the entire first post and what it says.

Also please find me a legal case which says that an un-named and unlimited class of plaintiffs defined only by residence in a certain state or other polity has the legal right to sue for anything.....

Darts · Jun 11, 2019

I don't care what anybody says, it is wrong for John Legend to ask/demand the film industry to stop doing business in certain states and harm the livelihood of people in that state. It is wrong, wrong, wrong! John Legend should stick to singing.
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/lif...-abortion-law-boycott-money-talks/1417131001/

WyattEarp · Jun 11, 2019

oagre said:
Of course, the "free speech citizens' caucus" will not be as pleased when the same defamation laws are applied to Fox news or the innumerable Far right internet blogs in similar circumstances.

That was quite a leap to Fox News. I'm fairly sure Fox News can fend for themselves, but your concern is very considerate.

Darts, political boycotts are part of our history. Remember MLK and the Civil Rights movement. As the nation becomes more and more culturally and economically integrated, States will have to consider blowback particularly on social issues.

As we proceed in the 21st century, I personally don't believe State's Rights hold a lot of water on social issues. That's why the Robert's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. I also believe they will uphold Roe vs. Wade with perhaps allowing states some tweaking for late term abortions. The alternative is your personal rights change dramatically as you drive or fly across states.

WyattEarp · Jun 11, 2019

It must be tough being a University President or Chancellor these days. The tenured professors virtually have total immunity and no accountability. If you follow a lot of these stories, it's literally the inmates running the asylum.

I'm sure the Oberlin alumni and their organizations are putting pressure on the trustees. The trustees and the university leadership are probably saying something stupid like "don't worry we're insured". Wait until they get their insurance premium renewal.

mandrill · Jun 11, 2019

WyattEarp said:
It must be tough being a University President or Chancellor these days. The tenured professors virtually have total immunity and no accountability. If you follow a lot of these stories, it's literally the inmates running the asylum.

I'm sure the Oberlin alumni and their organizations are putting pressure on the trustees. The trustees and the university leadership are probably saying something stupid like "don't worry we're insured". Wait until they get their insurance premium renewal.

The Dean was a nominal defendant to represent the university in this situation; but I think you get that and your point was directed more towards the politics and financing of universities and the role of the university executives.

I'm guessing that there was a deliberate judicial step here to calling out more "ideological" faculty members and causing slow but inevitable change in the university system as a whole. If faculty can direct what is essentially a hate campaign against members of the community based on lies and slanders, maybe their tenure shouldn't be 100% secure. Or even 1% secure. Maybe some university internal charters should be rewritten and lawsuit time bomb faculty removed?

It would be interesting to see if "academic freedom" was raised as a defence to this lawsuit. I have never heard it being a defence to a libel lawsuit, but I would be arguing that the university is trapped in the middle too at this trial. If the issue was discussed, the judge over-ruled the argument and sent the case to the jury for liability and damages to be assessed.

mandrill · Jun 11, 2019

WyattEarp said:
That was quite a leap to Fox News. I'm fairly sure Fox News can fend for themselves, but your concern is very considerate.

Darts, political boycotts are part of our history. Remember MLK and the Civil Rights movement. As the nation becomes more and more culturally and economically integrated, States will have to consider blowback particularly on social issues.

As we proceed in the 21st century, I personally don't believe State's Rights hold a lot of water on social issues. That's why the Robert's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. I also believe they will uphold Roe vs. Wade with perhaps allowing states some tweaking for late term abortions. The alternative is your personal rights change dramatically as you drive or fly across states.

Darts doesn't understand that a defamation lawsuit requires false statements about a recognizable and specific victim causing financial and other damages. It's about as different from a political boycott as monkeys from porcupines. I can call upon the fine fellows of TERB to boycott an agency that uses bait and switch photos as much as I want. That's a boycott.

But if the photos are genuine and not bait and switch, I would theoretically be liable for damages in libel for mis representing the facts and causing the agency financial loss based on my false statements.

canada-man · Jun 12, 2019

Is enrollment at oberlin declining?

jcpro · Jun 12, 2019

oagre said:
Darts doesn't understand that a defamation lawsuit requires false statements about a recognizable and specific victim causing financial and other damages. It's about as different from a political boycott as monkeys from porcupines. I can call upon the fine fellows of TERB to boycott an agency that uses bait and switch photos as much as I want. That's a boycott.

But if the photos are genuine and not bait and switch, I would theoretically be liable for damages in libel for mis representing the facts and causing the agency financial loss based on my false statements.

Hold on a second. They were accused of racism and racist prejudice in public and the College acted on those accusations. That's NOT a First Amendment issue. While an accusation itself might be interpreted as an opinion, the fact that Oberlin reacted based on those accusations, makes the whole situation actionable and outside of the Constitutional restrictions. The overwhelming decision for the plaintiff only confirms it.

mandrill · Jun 12, 2019

WyattEarp said:
That was quite a leap to Fox News. I'm fairly sure Fox News can fend for themselves, but your concern is very considerate.

Darts, political boycotts are part of our history. Remember MLK and the Civil Rights movement. As the nation becomes more and more culturally and economically integrated, States will have to consider blowback particularly on social issues.

As we proceed in the 21st century, I personally don't believe State's Rights hold a lot of water on social issues. That's why the Robert's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. I also believe they will uphold Roe vs. Wade with perhaps allowing states some tweaking for late term abortions. The alternative is your personal rights change dramatically as you drive or fly across states.

And as if on cue, a Far Right media outlet gets wacked in just the same type of defamation case as did Oberlin College.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/daily...lin-for-isis-smear?source=twitter&via=desktop

After Dean Obeidallah wrote a Daily Beast article condemning President Trump’s approach to white supremacist terror in 2017, the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer website falsely accused Obeidallah of being behind an ISIS attack.

Now The Daily Stormer’s founder is being forced to pay him millions for the smear.

Obeidallah, a comedian and radio host, sued Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin for defamation, and on Wednesday a judge ordered Anglin to pay $4.1 million in damages.

“The judge apparently found what they did so atrocious he gave them the most he could in punitive damages,” Obeidallah told The Daily Beast.

He said he plans on giving the money to organizations that combat bigotry.

“This was never about collecting money. If I collect a penny from the Nazis, I’m not going to keep their money. I’m going to give it to organizations that fight hate and bigotry, the very groups Nazis despise.”

Anglin, who has been on the lam for more than a year, didn’t testify, although his father did. The ruling comes is the latest legal strike against Anglin, who is currently avoiding another lawsuit by a Jewish woman who received death threats after Anglin attacked her on his site.

In Obeidallah’s case, the harassment started after he wrote an article entitled, “Will Donald Trump Ever Say the Words ‘White Supremacist Terrorism’?”

“We already had three to four acts of violence, murders, by people who were self-proclaimed white supremacists. The thesis of my article was that, during his campaign Trump demanded we say ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ Why won’t he say the words ‘white supremacist terrorism?’ said Obeidallah, who is Muslim.

“That got the eye of Andrew Anglin at the Daily Stormer who wrote an article the next day quoting my article and smearing me in the first line as an ISIS mastermind.”
“They fabricated tweets that looked real, that said I was involved in the Manchester bombing.”
— Dean Obeidallah

The doctored tweets appeared on the Stormer, a once-popular website that received approximately 3.18 million page views while the article was active, according to Obeidallah’s lawsuit. (The Stormer lost significant standing after it was kicked off its old webhost.)

Stormer readers piled on, sending Obeidallah death threats. The attacks took a toll on him, he said. Whereas Obeidallah once had few reservations about meeting fans, he said he’s now more cautious about scheduling meet-ups with people who reach out online.

Juvaria Khan, a senior staff attorney with Muslim Advocates who helped Obeidallah in his case said the court’s decision sent a strong message about the consequences of hate speech.

“We live in a climate where people feel emboldened to convey their bigoted views against marginalized communities including American Muslims,” Khan said. “This case is a very significant victory. We’re very proud of our client Dean for standing up and showing that violence and bigotry will not be tolerated.”

Obeidallah said he hopes the win can be a “roadmap” for people from other marginalized groups who seek legal action against white supremacists.

“The idea is about sending a message: if you attack these groups you despise, in my case Muslims, or Jews, or the LGBT community, or African-Americans, we are not going to cower,” he said.

“We’re going to hold you accountable by going to the federal courts and suing you. And we’re going to win that judgement against you.”

mandrill · Jun 12, 2019

jcpro said:
Hold on a second. They were accused of racism and racist prejudice in public and the College acted on those accusations. That's NOT a First Amendment issue. While an accusation itself might be interpreted as an opinion, the fact that Oberlin reacted based on those accusations, makes the whole situation actionable and outside of the Constitutional restrictions. The overwhelming decision for the plaintiff only confirms it.

JC, nothing you write has anything to do with defamation law.

Ohio Jury Delivers $11 Million Verdict Against Oberlin College

Well-known member

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Never Been Justly Banned

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member