Oberlin College ordered to post $36 million bond to delay Gibson’s Bakery collection of Judgment

[Anonymous]

Settlement? Heck, I’d rather split the difference than keep baking cupcakes or whatever for woke wealthy kids from all regions of New Jersey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

Apparently the bakery was allowed to present evidence it is not a racist bakery. The judge, however, prevented Oberlin to defend itself against the libel charge by preventing the college from presenting evidence that the bakery is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oberlin is doomed. They’ll go bankrupt and shut down.

No. Thet’ll just get more “students” like the shoplifter. It has happened with many liberal arts colleges who have to take the dregs to stay in business

Yep. Michigan State University just had to pay out over $600M for the Dr Nasser sexual assault judgment. They took out a bond and they ramped up enrollment.

And Duke just paid > $100M for research integrity issue. I guess it’ll go bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

As a lawyer, I would be shocked if either the libel charge or the tortious interference charge stands on appeal. You seem to have a jury voting on MAGA and not facts. Which is a MAGA speciality. But maybe there are facts I’m missing.

[Anonymous]

The original award was for $44M, reduced to some $24M based on a cut-and-paste motion. So imagine what could happen when you go before an impartial 3rd party judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

It isn’t. And this will be overturned on appeal. There were some huge errors the Judges rulings at the trial.

https://academeblog.org/2019/06/13/the-dangerous-defamation-judgment-against-oberlin-college/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

It isn’t. And this will be overturned on appeal. There were some huge errors the Judges rulings at the trial.

https://academeblog.org/2019/06/13/the-dangerous-defamation-judgment-against-oberlin-college/

From the article:

“Second, Oberlin was wrongly banned by the judge from presenting evidence of racism at Gibson’s Bakery, which if true would have nullified any defamation claim. When Chris Jenkins, an associate dean for academic support and equity, testified, “I personally have had moments in the [Gibson’s] store where I didn’t feel comfortable …” according to Legal Insurrection, “At that the judge cut him off and told the jury to disregard.” The judge wouldn’t allow Oberlin to mention racial comments by Allyn Gibson on Facebook in 2012. According to Legal Insurrection, the judge didn’t want “students or administrators to use the witness stand to debate if Gibson’s was racist or not.” Considering that the alleged racism of Gibson’s Bakery was the basis of the defamation charge, it is bizarre for a judge to make the topic off-limits at the trial. By contrast, the judge openly allowed numerous witnesses to testify that Gibson’s was not racist.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

It isn’t. And this will be overturned on appeal. There were some huge errors the Judges rulings at the trial.

https://academeblog.org/2019/06/13/the-dangerous-defamation-judgment-against-oberlin-college/

From the article:

“Second, Oberlin was wrongly banned by the judge from presenting evidence of racism at Gibson’s Bakery, which if true would have nullified any defamation claim. When Chris Jenkins, an associate dean for academic support and equity, testified, “I personally have had moments in the [Gibson’s] store where I didn’t feel comfortable …” according to Legal Insurrection, “At that the judge cut him off and told the jury to disregard.” The judge wouldn’t allow Oberlin to mention racial comments by Allyn Gibson on Facebook in 2012. According to Legal Insurrection, the judge didn’t want “students or administrators to use the witness stand to debate if Gibson’s was racist or not.” Considering that the alleged racism of Gibson’s Bakery was the basis of the defamation charge, it is bizarre for a judge to make the topic off-limits at the trial. By contrast, the judge openly allowed numerous witnesses to testify that Gibson’s was not racist.”

Yep. You have a right to provide an affirmative defense. This Judge managed this trial very badly. Likely because he is an elected official in small town Ohio. Of course, if Oberlin ultimately wins on appeal, Gibson’s will owe them millions in legal fees...

[Anonymous]

1. You don't have a "right to provide an affirmative defense" at trial. You can plead one but not everything can be offered at trial. Saying that the Plaintiff is racist is not an affirmative defense. Oberlin's lawyer engaged in a scorched earth defense so I would imagine this was extensively briefed. The trial judge is going to have a lot of latitude on setting the boundaries in jury trial.

2. Attorney fees. Normally in America you can't recover attorneys fees in a civil case. The most common exception is when there is a contract providing attorneys fees and then it goes both ways. However, my research shows that in Ohio, when punitive damages are awarded then the prevailing party can seek attorneys fees. So that appears to be the basis for the award to the Plaintiffs. Should the punitive damage award be reversed then the attorney fees would go out the window. However this does not mean that Oberlin can then seek attorneys fees from the Plaintiffs. Oberlin (or more likely its insurer) pays their own.

3. Above is cited an article from a blog of the AAUP (University Professors organization). The author is a serious SJW. It is a rather poor source of information.

4. As a lawyer, I'd be surprised if the business interference claim doesn't stand. Gibsons had a contract with a third party vendor (forget the name) which in turn provided food service to the College. Evidence was Oberlin forced third party vendor to suspend Gibsons. This was in addition to the direct contract Gibsons had with Oberlin. Remember the jury was the trier of fact on this and appellate court rarely overturn juries on the facts.

[Anonymous]

Truth is an absolute defense to libel. Not allowing Oberlin to enter evidence into the record, like racist FB posts, that demonstrate that the bakery owners behaved in a racist manner will get this case overturned on appeal. Yes, a trial judge has wide latitude. But not allowing any evidence of racism goes beyond that.

I am less clear on the facts in the tortuous interference case. I don’t see how you have tortuous interference on the first contract. It should be considered in straight up breach of contact. If Oberlin really pressured a third party vendor to drop Gibson’s as a client (as opposed to saying the no longer wanted Gibson’s products), I can see a tortuous interference claim. But I haven’t seen the 3rd party contract discussed anywhere. Just the direct contract.

[Anonymous]

1. Racism is a conclusion not evidence of fact. My understanding is that the FB posts were from 2012 and the judge found them too remote in time and they may have been too vague. The evidence of racism must be of fact not conclusion. The evidence sought to be offered by the defense appears to be conclusions of various people not facts. Now one wonders if the defense counsel preserved the record by making an offer of proof for the record. Such a failure would lead to not having preserved the issue for appeal purposes.

2. As to the third party contract. This is from the defense's trial brief: “Fourth, Oberlin College justifiably directed Bon Appetit to stop purchasing from Gibson’s Bakery after the protests in November 2016 to help quell student unrest and to promote a mutually beneficial resolution following the violent attack by Allyn Jr. on an unarmed student.” https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjl6c7KstjjAhUIEawKHW-FBWgQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F04%2FGibsons-Bakery-v.-Oberlin-College-Defendants-Trial-Brief.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0AeoGBJa79qOHbfVdOMPZG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

An African-American Oberlin student, Jonathan Aladan, went to Gibson’s Bakery and attempted to leave with two wine bottles under his shirt. The shop-owner’s grandson, Allyn Gibson, called the police and then apprehended the student outside the store, leading to a fight, which, later, also involved two black females. The police broke it up, arrested all three students and charged them with crimes – they later pleaded guilty, and made statements absolving Gibson’s of any misconduct or racial animus.

Immediately after the shoplifting arrests, Oberlin students began accusing the bakery of racial profiling. They launched protests, handing out fliers telling people ‘DON’T BUY’ and alleging that the bakery was ‘a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION’. They also began spreading rumours in the town that Aladan was ‘assaualted’ by Gibson even though, when the police arrived, they found the students punching and kicking Gibson. Leaflets recommended 10 rival businesses to which patrons could go instead.

But such a stance misses a major part of the story – Oberlin hasn’t been punished for the actions of its students. Rather, the college itself has been found responsible for getting involved with the smear campaign against Gibson’s.

The court found against the college’s administration, and particularly against its vice-president and dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, because they actively supported the protestors – it’s not necessarily the case that the administrators were leading any campaign against the bakery, but they were certainly working closely together. Raimondo helped to orchestrate the protest, speaking on a bullhorn and handing out the aforementioned fliers (protestors were allowed access to administration offices to make more copies). Students were attended the protest were excused from classes, and officials provided free pizza and drinks for them.

A Facebook post by an Oberlin academic department stated that “Gibson’s has been bad for decades, their dislike of Black people is palpable. Their food is rotten and they profile Black students. NO MORE!” A few weeks later, Raimondo ordered the college’s cafeteria to stop buying food from Gibson’s – another official tried to use this as leverage against the bakery, stating that “once the charges are dropped, orders will resume”. The chief of staff, Ferdinand Protzman, also suggested another reason for this – the administration feared that the students would create a “tantrum” on campus, especially in the cafeteria during dinner, by throwing Gibson’s food on the floor and stomping on it. “Doesn’t that sound more like a nursery school than a college?” asked the bakery’s lawyer.

Because of the college’s war against them, Gibson’s claimed that they suffered damage to their reputation, economic welfare and community standing, and the jury appeared to agree with them. Their sales dropped by roughly 50%, forcing staffing cuts, and many of the family members had to work without pay. Some of their employees had their tyres slashed. On multiple occasions, they tried to settle with Oberlin but, after constant refusals, were forced to bring about a lawsuit.

Members of the local community also turned out to support the bakery, and to argue against any suggestion of racial bias. Over a five-year period, 40 people were charged with shoplifting from Gibson’s, 6 of whom were African-American (percentage-wise, exactly matching Oberlin’s 15% black population). Across the town, 83% of all shoplifting arrests were Oberlin students – in 2017, the ‘Culture of Theft’ was even discussed fondly in the school’s magazine. One local bookstore owner said that she loses $10,000 a year in stolen goods to Oberlin students.

https://theboar.org/2019/07/oberlin-and-the-us-culture-war/

wow! interesting indeed

I guess this fine institution will have to increase tuition to make up for this "tragic" loss.

Social Justice Warriors, please apply!

Well said.

[Anonymous]

From what I recall the factual evidence on racism were police records showing that Gibson’s did not disproportionately accuse black customers of theft.

Oberlin’s counter presentation of facts could have been that Gibson’s did disproportionately call the police on black customers but that was not the case.

Some statements from students and professors about their feelings is just opinion and not probative.

I do think the amount will be carved down - it’s just not in the public interest to impose costs like that on nonprofit educational institutions.

[Anonymous]

I hope Oberlin is forced to pay up every dime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

From what I recall the factual evidence on racism were police records showing that Gibson’s did not disproportionately accuse black customers of theft.

Oberlin’s counter presentation of facts could have been that Gibson’s did disproportionately call the police on black customers but that was not the case.

Some statements from students and professors about their feelings is just opinion and not probative.

I do think the amount will be carved down - it’s just not in the public interest to impose costs like that on nonprofit educational institutions.

Supposedly the bakery called on whites approximately 70% of the time. Surprised Oberlin attorneys didn’t ask for the breakdown of the “whites”. “Whites” include Hispanic from Mexico, Central America, and South America, Muslims, SE Asians (Pakistanis, Indians), and Northern Africans. Once you get a breakdown, you can get a better picture of whether the bakery was targeting minorities.