Will I Ever See the $36 Million Oberlin College Owes Me?

This isnt changing my mind about it!

 

I wouldn't call a lawsuit against an institution for a false and libelous slur that essentially destroyed a business frivolous.

 

Can't say that I expected it would.

 

I believe there was evidence that McDonald’s had memos about the coffee being scalding hot. It wasn’t just “hot” coffee.

 

Just to be clear, I don’t know whether this lawsuit was rightly decided or whether a biased jury decided to
unfairly punish Oberlin. My only point was that a lawsuit that ends up with this result by definition should not be called frivolous. I also am disturbed that the courts have become so politicized that you can often determine the outcome based on who is sitting on the court.

 

They sued a school with a massive endowment because something some students did, and it didn't destroy the business, they are a chain and still in business

 

Frivolous isn't actually a technical term with a set meaning. I mean, basically any suit that is allowed to proceed without being summarily dismissed couldn't be "frivolous" as the court would deem it to have some merit or standing.

 

John Morgan? Is that you?

 

Gibson's Food Mart & Bakery is part of a chain? How many other stores do they have than the one located at 23 W. College St, Oberlin, Ohio? From what I have been able to infer from multiple sources is that a fairly high percentage of the store's sales were from students and even the university itself. Even conceding that the $36 million is excessive, rationally the store should still be entitled to damages. Although the boycott may have been initiated by students it was certainly supported by at least one member of the administration of the college even if only symbolically who was apparently acting in her official capacity. At a minimum she was grossly negligent.

Ohio college racks up millions in interest on cash owed to bakery over false racism allegations

 

According to this article from August:

Court: Oberlin College not liable for judgment while appeals are being considered

Oberlin College has an appeal bond through Zurich American Insurance Company for the amount of the judgment plus interest in the event its appeals are unsuccessful. Interest payments continue to add up daily.

The Gibsons have asked a court to order Zurich to pay the bond, saying the bakery may go out of business if the appeals don't go their way. Oberlin College has pushed back, as it has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn a 9th District Court of Appeals ruling against it.

 

The article made reference to another location

The way that is implied is that there are other branches too. But I'm sure portraying themselves as some kind of tiny mom and pop is useful PR so rubes can sympathize.

 

According to their website it’s a one store establishment.
Gibson's Bakery – The Bakery and Candy Store

 

Assuming she is roughly the same age as her late husband (he was 65 when he passed away in 2019) she worked at Elyria branch over 40 years ago (she was 23 at the time). Since I couldn't find any other reference to the Elyria branch it's reasonable to assume that it closed decades ago. Even conceding that they had more than their current single location in Oberlin, I wouldn't exactly call a mom and pop store with two locations "a chain".

 

From the piece:

The school put out a statement that implied that this wasn't an isolated incident.



Nothing in the linked statement supports that characterization. That is a falsehood

The article from the school paper 3 days later describes the incident far differently. The alleged shoplifter denies he was leaving the store and he was confronted while in the store. And it doesn’t talk about anyone but students passing out flyers.

The appellate opinion is here - https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf

It does not dispute either the facts above. The alleged shoplifter was confronted in the store. The tie in to the University had to do with an administrator attending the protest, which was purportedly her duty to maintain the peace. The facts are disputed whether she actually passed out a flyer (through paragraph 11, it indicates will be further discussion later on).

She did direct that the college no longer purchase from the store, indirectly through one of its dining hall vendors. I don't see how that's actionable immediately, but I wait to read on further.

Would have to read the whole summary of evidence, which I did, but it seems pretty limited in putting the college at fault and passing out the flyers as opposed to the college not restraining the students from doing so. Then there is the Senate resolution, which apparently Oberlin was held liable for failing to correct. Again, that seems pretty thin as evidence of actual defamation, namely not correcting a subordinate. This is the legal principle that the courts relied upon

In wrestling with the issue, the court held that “[o]ne who intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that he knows to be exhibited on land or chattels in his possession or under his control is subject to liability for its continued publication.”

So the college was held liable, including punitive damages, for failing to correct its students’ speech. On the intentional infliction of emotional distress count, again, the college was held liable for failure to supposedly, not for its own direct actions to inflict emotional distress.

The Gibsons presented other messages that were communicated between senior administrators that also expressed their lack of concern about the past and ongoing damages that had been suffered by the Gibsons.

I've never heard about inflicting a party with liability because it was not concerned sufficiently that the damage of third-party was causing.

I've read through 31 to 55 pages. That's enough time invested. And it's not legally accurate to claim that three courts have actually agreed with the plaintiffs. The first court legally knocked out many of their counts but the jury ruled on three of them, and award of punitive damages. The appellate court said that there was at least enough evidence to not reverse a jury verdict, which is a very different standard. The Ohio Supreme Court did not even hear the case. It's a false characterization.

Also this links to Bari Weiss so you can presume that the polemic as worded is distorted, at a minimum. She is a highly dishonest individual

 

I need to see all the facts here, but the statement they posted in the article is nothing close to libelous:
Krislov, Raimondo Respond to Student Senate Resolution
Student Senate passed a resolution ceasing all support for Gibson’s Bakery, financial and otherwise, after three Black College students were arrested following an altercation with employee Allyn Gibson Wednesday evening that many allege is a case of racial profiling. President Marvin Krislov and Dean of Students and Vice President Meredith Raimondo issued a response Friday afternoon in an email to students, the text of which can be found below.

Dear Students,

This has been a difficult few days for our community, not simply because of the events at Gibson’s Bakery, but because of the fears and concerns that many are feeling in response to the outcome of the presidential election. We write foremost to acknowledge the pain and sadness that many of you are experiencing. We want you to know that the administration, faculty, and staff are here to support you as we work through this moment together.

Regarding the incident at Gibson’s, we are deeply troubled because we have heard from students that there is more to the story than what has been generally reported. We will commit every resource to determining the full and true narrative, including exploring whether this is a pattern and not an isolated incident. We are dedicated to a campus and community that treats all faculty, staff and students fairly and without discrimination. We expect that our community businesses and friends share the same values and commitments.

Accordingly, we have taken the following steps: 1) Dean Meredith Raimondo and her team have worked to support students and families affected by these events, and will continue to do so. 2) Tita Reed, Special Assistant for Government and Community Relations, has reached out to Mr. Gibson to engage in dialogue that will ensure that our broader community can work and learn together in an environment of mutual respect free of discrimination. We will continue to work on these matters in the coming days to make sure that our students, staff, and faculty can feel safe and secure throughout our town.
----------------------------------------------------
If that's the basis for their libel case, there's no way they should have won anything. That all said, I'm not sure what recourse the school has at this point.

 

no, they sued an entity that defamed them or materially supported those that did and caused them to suffer as a result of that defamation. the rest is your political narrative.

 

and now that the SC has said no, I suspect Zurich will pay up and foreclose on the capital

 

So the business was already shrinking and failing then?

 

That’s your narrative and you’re welcome to it

 

I suspected that was the case. Just another example of how dishonest Bari Weiss is in omitting that fact