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

mascan42

Registered User
#76
Only professional far left activists and students have the anger and time/money to go after a small who gives a care bakery. Muslims vote 80% to the left so you aren't going to see that happen. A school will end LGBTQ classes to please the Muslim parents at the school but will not do the same for Christians who are against LGBTQ classes.
In the modern oppression hierarchy, roof-tossers outrank salad-tossers.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
#78
Christ what a clueless fuckwit.

I attended Oberlin College in the 1980s and was fortunate enough to have made a few friends in the town. They were good-natured but they often teased me about the low repute the students had among the “townies”.

Good-natured teasing is one thing, but the hostility toward Oberlin showed by the jury goes far beyond this. There are many colleges in the country that could be put out of business by a verdict of this size.
Like there's any comparison between what was happening back in the 80s, and the batshit SJW insanity that's happening now.

The hostility toward Oberlin is a direct backlash against the hostility that Oberlin has has show the "townies" with their wokester assholery.
 
#79
Christ what a clueless fuckwit.



Like there's any comparison between what was happening back in the 80s, and the batshit SJW insanity that's happening now.

The hostility toward Oberlin is a direct backlash against the hostility that Oberlin has has show the "townies" with their wokester assholery.
Ya the reason the jury was angry was these elitist douchbags tried to put out a family business that has been there since 1885... go fuck yourself.
 
#81
Is that writer practicing law without a degree?



Evan Gerstmann
I am a professor and publish on constitutional and educational issues.
I’ve always been interested in how we should balance individual and minority rights with majority rule. After several years practicing law in New York city, I found my true calling as a college professor and researcher. I’ve written about campus free speech, same-sex equality and racial justice for Cambridge University, The University of Chicago, and Harvard University. My latest book is "Campus Sexual Assault: Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".



He looks like KTC, if KTC was a burn victim...
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
#82



Evan Gerstmann
I am a professor and publish on constitutional and educational issues.
I’ve always been interested in how we should balance individual and minority rights with majority rule. After several years practicing law in New York city, I found my true calling as a college professor and researcher. I’ve written about campus free speech, same-sex equality and racial justice for Cambridge University, The University of Chicago, and Harvard University. My latest book is "Campus Sexual Assault: Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".



He looks like KTC, if KTC was a burn victim...
An older version on Earf 2. Maybe.
 

domelogic

Registered User
#84
Apparently Evan is a very progressive liberal. I wonder why no mention of the other emails that were produced in court. He blames the town people for being to angry but never condemns the students. I guess being labeled a racyss, having your business and name destroyed allows you to be angry bu a jury should not award damages for that. Now try not baking a cake for lbgtqrs and damages are totally fine. No you dummy the only way this ends is by verdicts like this or the left will continue to destroy people or businesses when they want.


Oberlin is certainly a school that is vulnerable to charges of “political correctness” and it would be better if many colleges did a better job of teaching students the value of due process, respect for others’ opinions, and the importance of patience before jumping to conclusions. But critics of political correctness need to heed these lessons too. This is an angry, excessive verdict that goes well beyond what the facts call for. As everybody knows, our society is deeply divided these days, and the jury took this opportunity to hammer an institution strongly identified with the progressive left and all its excesses.

We are living in very angry times. And it is certainly understandable why the Gibsons are angry. It is no small thing for a business to be accused of racism. But courts are supposed to temper anger with a respect for the rule of law. This verdict, by holding Oberlin accountable for words that were not spoken by it, and by showing a lack of restraint in terms of damages, is not in the public interest. The appellate courts should strike down this verdict.
 
#85
Oberlin is certainly a school that is vulnerable to charges of “political correctness” and it would be better if many colleges did a better job of teaching students the value of due process, respect for others’ opinions, and the importance of patience before jumping to conclusions. But critics of political correctness need to heed these lessons too. This is an angry, excessive verdict that goes well beyond what the facts call for. As everybody knows, our society is deeply divided these days, and the jury took this opportunity to hammer an institution strongly identified with the progressive left and all its excesses.

We are living in very angry times. And it is certainly understandable why the Gibsons are angry. It is no small thing for a business to be accused of racism.
But courts are supposed to temper anger with a respect for the rule of law. This verdict, by holding Oberlin accountable for words that were not spoken by it, and by showing a lack of restraint in terms of damages, is not in the public interest. The appellate courts should strike down this verdict.

- You fucktards tried to destroy their family owned business by accusing them of being rayciss townies... you cuntfart
 
#86
They just don't learn...



Earlier this month, a jury awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million following a month-long trial stemming from the bakery’s lawsuit against Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. Then, last Thursday, it added $33 million in punitive damages. This stunning decision — which strikes a serious blow against free speech on college campuses across the country — has garnered significant attention in major media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as on social media and various personal blogs.

The tension between the College and Gibson’s began in November 2016, when three Black students were involved in a physical altercation outside of Gibson’s after Allyn Gibson, son of store owner David Gibson, accused one of the students of shoplifting. The three students were arrested. Shortly thereafter, Oberlin students alleged that Allyn had racially profiled the students and launched a protest and boycott of the bakery. A year later, Gibson’s sued, alleging that the College and Raimondo had participated in smearing its reputation.

Unfortunately, much of the coverage and commentary has either inaccurately represented the lawsuit and the events that led up to it, or has only presented parts of the larger story. An extensive timeline of events is outlined in a recent Review article covering news of the verdict (“Jury Rules for Gibson’s, Assigns $44 Million in Damages,” June 14, 2019). Readers looking for more background on the verdict should consult that article.

As stories about the verdict transition from breaking news coverage to think pieces about the impact of the jury’s decision, the Editorial Board wants to identify three of the key ways that existing coverage has skewed or misrepresented events leading up to the trial.

The first concerns the Oberlin Police Department report that was filed following the initial altercation outside Gibson’s in November 2016. The document filed by responding officers was wildly prejudiced in favor of Gibson’s, as it only included statements from owner David Gibson, his son Allyn Gibson, and a Gibson’s employee. David and the employee both backed up Allyn’s version of events, giving them near-complete control of the narrative in the report and, consequently, in the media.
Noticeably absent from the police report was the perspective of any of the three Black students involved in the initial incident, not to mention the witnesses who originally called police out of concern for the students’ safety or who saw the altercation. Officers did include the line, “It should be noted that as the reporting officer was interviewing all three subjects several other individuals who were also on scene at the time of the incident and who were initially interfering with officers attempting to gain control of the situation, began stating that Allyn was the aggressor and the black man didn’t do anything wrong.” This is the only suggestion in the entire report that anything took place outside of the Gibson’s’ version of events.

This omission is meaningful — particularly in a country with a long and shameful history of manipulating testimony and evidence to criminalize people of color, especially Black people. That report defined the narrative that, from the beginning, was parroted by mainstream outlets and right-wing blogs alike to vilify the three Black students and those who came to their defense. By immediately assuming the students’ guilt, the report significantly impacted the way this story is discussed in the public sphere — even today.

Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading.

Former Student Senate Chair Kameron Dunbar, OC ’19, put it best in a recent New York Times article when he said, “Part of the narrative that has been built up is that Oberlin’s administration weaponized students against Gibson’s out of malice. I find that concept to be pretty insulting. We’re autonomous” (“Oberlin Helped Students Defame a Bakery, a Jury Says. The Punishment: $33 Million,” June 14, 2019).

Whatever you think of the protests and boycott of Gibson’s, the responsibility for them lies squarely with students. Nobody at Oberlin — student, administrator, or otherwise — has ever contested this fact and, indeed, students continue to openly take ownership of their actions. On campus, the idea that administrators could somehow orchestrate a student protest is laughable; Oberlin students prize their independence above nearly all else. If anything, students at the time felt that administrators were dragging their feet — especially after it was announced that the College would resume its contract with Gibson’s in early 2017.
In this context, the narrative of the ‘Goliath’ college egging on its students completely deteriorates. It’s true that Raimondo was at the protests, but she was simply attempting to ensure the safety of all involved — as dictated within the responsibilities of her job. Any other framing is incomplete, and we urge both journalists and readers to critically evaluate the facts of the College’s involvement.

Finally, many journalists and commentators — although not all — appear to believe that the salient question at hand is whether the three students involved in the initial altercation were actually guilty of shoplifting, or if students were right to protest the bakery and characterize that incident as racial profiling. Many outlets have even used the names of the three students in their coverage of the trial — an irresponsible decision given that the three students were not parties to the lawsuit and have nothing to do with the legal questions at hand.

We encourage readers and journalists to reject this framing of the story. The core question of the trial was whether Oberlin College and its dean of students are on the hook for statements made by their students. The chilling answer from the jury was a resounding yes. That decision should broadly concern everybody who believes in freedom of speech and student autonomy.
Throughout the trial, the Gibsons maintained that the College should have stepped in on the bakery’s behalf; the College’s argument was that administrators could only try to maintain the safety of all parties involved, and that any attempt to dictate student speech would be blatantly outside the scope of responsible leadership.

The jury sided with the Gibsons — a decision with profoundly disturbing implications for free speech at Oberlin and on college campuses across an increasingly authoritarian country. Conservative commentators often talk about a supposed crisis of free speech on campuses, wherein students wield the sword of political correctness to silence dissenting opinions. To the contrary, this verdict is a real warning shot against free speech. The fact that those same commentators have widely lauded the verdict reveals their hypocrisy and lays their thinly-veiled agenda bare.

Ultimately, we believe that the story of the verdict should be discussed out in the open, because the jury’s decision — as it stands — sets a concerning precedent that must be challenged. However, these discussions must take place with the full picture in mind, otherwise they won’t get anywhere useful. This piece is a starting point for expanding those conversations, but it is by no means the end.

In this difficult moment, we hope that Oberlin students are not discouraged from continuing the kind of sustained and brave activism that emerged following the initial November 2016 incident at Gibson’s. We hope that students continue to validate and support the experiences of their peers, even as some silence them and others attempt to force their institution to do the same. We also hope that students continue the good work of building relationships with community members, and that tension arising from the verdict does not impact the many positive, symbiotic partnerships that exist between students and the broader community.

And, in the very near term, we hope that the College will appeal the jury’s verdict and continue to fight for the right of its students — and the rights of students across the country — to identify injustice and speak out firmly against it.
Link


Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading. - Well they did, there are friggin emails of you threatening it.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
#87
They just don't learn...



Link


Second, many people have bought into the narrative presented in court by Gibson’s’ attorneys that the College acted as a ‘Goliath’ in encouraging students to crush a small, locally-owned family business. While it’s true that the College is often not the most considerate neighbor, in this situation the accusation is entirely contrived, and the support that it has found not just from personal blogs, but major media outlets as well, is misleading. - Well they did, there are friggin emails of you threatening it.
Too bad they can’t be sued again.
 
#89
Boooo reduced to only $25 million...

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College: The $13 million damage claim the jury wasn’t permitted to consider

Had the reputation repair damage theory gone to the jury, the final judgment — even after adjusting for the tort reform caps — could have been double the $25 million entered in the case.

But it could have been worse. Much worse.



Oberlin College’s erroneous crisis management public relations campaign seeks to portray itself as the victim of a process in which the judge and jury made numerous mistakes, and the media misrepresented the case.

But in reality, Judge John Miraldi had several rulings that helped Oberlin College tremendously. In his pre-trial summary judgment ruling, Judge Miraldi found a number of the statements the plaintiffs wanted to present to the jury on the libel claim to be constitutionally protected opinion. Only two of the documents which contained defamatory statements and were spread by the college (the flyer and student senate resolution) were permitted to be shown to the jury. The judge also denied the plaintiffs’ request to show videos of the demonstrations because student speech was not at issue (contrary to what Oberlin College President Ambar keeps saying).

More important than all those rulings was the Judge’s refusal to let the plaintiffs call an expert witness on the cost of repairing the reputational damage.

Daniel McGraw wrote about expert James Maggiore on May 2, 2019:

Today, the Oberlin College lawyers filed a motion to prevent media/advertising expert, Dick Maggiore, to testify at the trial. Maggiore is president and CEO of Innis Maggiore, a Canton OH based ad agency/crisis management firm that has big clients: Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Purell Hand Sanitizing, some Ohio hospitals in Northeast Ohio, and Republic Steel.
The reason the college’s attorneys don’t want Maggiore’s 14-page report to be admitted is that they don’t think he bases his estimates of “damaged brand” repair on enough methodology. Maggiore answered this claim that his report was too much guesswork and not enough expertise by giving out his background: 40 years as head of his award-winning ad agency, regular gigs as college professor at University of Akron and Walsh University, and occasional lectures at Kent State University.
The judge seems to be leaning toward allowing the report to be admitted and Maggiore to testify, and allow Oberlin College to knock down credibility with cross-examination. But Judge Miraldi will not rule on this until next week.
Maggiore’s report says it will take six months of to “defend” the Gibson’s name, two years to “repair,” and another four years of “recovery.” The Oberlin College attorney expressed skepticism that it would take more than six years and $13.5 million of “brand mending” to fix a business that had had about $1 million of annual sales prior to the November 2106 protest.​

Judge Miraldi ultimately did not allow Maggiore to testify or his damage theory to go to the jury, but we didn’t have the Judge’s written order was not available until recently.

Though dated May 10, the Order (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) was docketed in the Clerk’s office on June 27, 2019. What seems to be happening is that the fast flow and volume of papers during the trial was such that it is taking time the loose ends to be tied up and docketed.

The Judge described the damage claim that could have added $13 million to the compensatory damage claim:

Defendants have filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Richard Maggiore. Mr. Maggiore is affiliated with Innis-Maggiore, an advertising agency in the Akron-Canton Area. Mr. Maggiore is not an accountant or an economist. A review of Mr. Maggiore’s testimony at the motion hearing, his discovery deposition, and his report shows Mr. Maggiore has recommended that the Plaintiffs utilize an extensive, multi-phase marketing and advertising campaign in the future to mitigate, repair, and restore the reputation or brand of Plaintiffs’ business as well as the Plaintiffs’ personal reputations. Mr. Maggiore has quantified the dollar amount necessary to complete this campaign at approximately $13 million dollars….
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that damage to reputation is a tort injury, subjecting any recovery to the damage caps· set forth in Ohio Revised Code § 2315.18. Those damage caps apply only to non-economic damages. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Maggiore’s thirteen million dollar brand restoration plan is an economic loss that is not
subject to the damage cap or limit.​

The Judge didn’t let it go to the jury because he could not find case law allowing such reputation repair damages, and in any event, the Judge viewed the theory as insufficiently reliable in light of the plaintiffs’ accounting expert’s analysis of the lost future revenue to the business:

This Court has been unable to find a case specifically on point regarding the issue of
whether the future projected cost to repair, restore, or mitigate the damage. to a
business’s reputation is a proper element of economic damages in a business
defamation case….
Courts have generally identified three
areas of measurable loss: 1) decreased income; 2) the diminished value of the
business; and 3) known reduction of the business’s good will (generally deemed by
Courts to be synonymous with “reputation”). All of these measures are reflected in the
business’s balance sheet.
Plaintiffs will utilize expert testimony from Frank Monaco, CPA. · Mr. Monaco is the
managing partner of an accounting firm and the director of the litigation support and
business valuation division of the accounting firm. Mr. Monaco has prepared a report
wherein he opines that the quantifiable and measurable economic loss caused to the
Plaintiffs’ business is $5.3 million dollars. Mr. Monaco employed many routinely
accepted methods and principles of accounting, including a present value analysis, in
reaching his opinions. These are damages that may be recoverable by the business for
the harm caused to its reputation by the alleged defamation.
Mr. Maggiore’s report is more akin to an advertising or marketing proposal. Mr.
Maggiore is proposing that the Plaintiffs spend in excess of $13 million dollars in the
future to repair or restore their business reputation….
The Court notes that as to the element of future damages, expert testimony is
necessary to establish that the damages are “reasonable and necessary” and
reasonably certain to occur.
Mr. Maggiore will not offer any opinion regarding the value of the Plaintiffs’ business
before versus after the alleged damage to reputation. Without that information, his
opinion that $13.5 million dollars is reasonable and necessary to restore the business
reputation of the Plaintiffs is inherently unreliable….
Mr. Monaco has opined using accounting principles that the measurable amount of
damage, past and future, caused by the harm to the business reputation is $5.3 million
dollars. That is the market value. Mr. Maggiore has recommended $13.5 million dollars
to repair that same loss in the future. This is not permitted under common principles of
damage law. To permit Mr. Maggiore to testify regarding a future amount of money
recommended to repair that loss will confuse the jury and could result in duplicative or
excessive damages.
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to exdude testimony of Richard
Maggiore is granted.​

Understand what that could have meant.

If the $13 million reputation repair damages were allowed to go to the jury, it’s almost certain in light of the jury’s other verdicts that the damages would have been granted as economic damages, subject to doubling for punitive damages ($26 million), for a total of $39 million.

While there’s no guarantee how the jury would have allocated such damages relative to the other damages, I think it’s fair to say that had the reputation repair damage theory been permitted to go to the jury, we could have been looking at final judgment, even after adjusting for the tort reform caps, close to double the $25 million entered in the case.

Because the Judge was so cautious, contrary to the way Oberlin College portrays it in their public relations campaign, Oberlin College may have gotten away easy.
Link

 

Floyd1977

Registered User
#95
Do we really think these cunts will actually end up paying, or will find some OJ-esque way around it until the family dies off.
 
#98
The college has assets out the ass... so what Fezman said... fuck you... pay me.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
#99
Good. Maybe next time those Libtards will keep their mouth shut and look into something before firing off their salty mouths.
This is absolutely great news.
Don’t count on it, this will make them martyrs for the cause
 
Top