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

$36 million seems excessive for a bakery.

 

I really do not know but I think there is more to it than just “a bakery”.
I think some consideration goes into who is being sued and what they can pay. If they went after Oberlain for 10,000.00 is that really punitive? It’s like fining Tom Brady 500.00. Or taking 2 scholarships away from FSU for cheating the last 10 years.
Then there is the idea that Oberlain was essentially punching down and helping to destroy not just the bakery, but a livelihood and a reputation. I that plays into this as well.Oberlain had the opportunities to stop the harassment, or at least not help perpetuate it.. and CHOSE not to. They chose to be on what was clearly the wrong side. They chose to be on the side that attacked the innocent.
36 mil seems about right.

 

If Tom Brady stole $500 from me, should I get awarded $1,000,000 because it's not punitive enough relative to his wealth to get something like $1,000 in damages. Courts award way too much money.

 

Did he steal 500.00 dollars, spread false rumors that ruined your reputation, and cause mental anguish over an extended amount of time?
I agree in general far too much is awarded. But that ship sailed long ago and I can’t see complaining when Oberlain was punching down on an innocent mom and pop store.

 

I believe in free speech. Defamation and the related causes of action are dangerous if applied too broadly because they can penalize free speech. This case looks very problematic to me. I have yet to see anything Oberlin itself actually did wrong. The idea that the college is responsible for policing its students' speech is unacceptable to me.

Funny you'd describe it this way. The "anti-wokes" do have a habit of trying to "reign[] in" "woke culture" by attacking free speech.

Quite hypocritical to scold people for behavior you are engaging in.

 

Nope. I am fully on the side of the facts, the judges, and the final verdict. Not because one side or the other “won” but because it is obvious that after looking at all the evidence and facts of the case 3 different times the same judgement has been upheld.

 

Ah yes, that's why you went on your little "woke" rant. Go sell your BS to somebody who buys it. As I said, let me know what Oberlin did wrong here, besides not policing its students' speech. I'm happy to read and consider the evidence against Oberlin. Just let me know what it was.

 

Hahaha
You must be so far more enlightened then the 3 judges who heard the arguments, saw the evidence, know the facts and still ALL three disagree with you. All three agreed Oberlin was guilty. To the tune of 36 million.

 

they told their vendors to cancel their contracts with the bakery based on allegations of racism.

 

That doesn't give rise to a defamation or libel claim.

 

Oberlin initiated financial sanctions against the bakery, while lending material support to protestors. Meredith Raimondo, a college administrator, took part in the protest, distributing a pamphlet alleging racism on the part of the bakery. In 2019, a jury found that the college had defamed the owner of Gibson's Bakery and his family, and awarded them millions of dollars in damages.

 

In other words, a college has to pay out millions of dollars because one of its deans may have handed out a flier alleging racism while taking part in a student protest following an incident between the store and students of color? You don't see how the First Amendment is relevant here?

Imagine Tim Scott alleges that Chuck Schumer called him the n-word. A bunch of prominent conservatives protest in front of Chuck Schumer's office and hand out pamphlets calling him a racist. Some of those conservatives are leaders of the RNC. Later, it's discovered that Tim Scott lied. Should the RNC be liable to Chuck Schumer, or is it protected speech?

 

is the baker a public figure?

freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of that speech, especially it’s it’s false speech damaging a private citizen.

you know this.

 

I don’t know enough details of the case to determine whether the judgment was fair. However, doesn’t a private college have the right to determine who to do business with? Why would it be forced to pay the bakery that it chose to not do business with anymore? As to your assertion that the allegations of racism were completely false, are you sure of that? I thought I read somewhere that the manager of the bakery, who was one of the family members, had a consistent pattern of posting racist things on his Facebook page. Finally, how do you know that the business of the bakery was destroyed?

 

I read the article. I still have the same questions.

 

The McDonald's lawsuit was hardly frivolous, at least that is the understanding I was left with after a lecture involving the case from a well respected UF law professor. But who knows, maybe @wgbgator is more knowledgeable of the case or just law in general. I will admit to only having a bachelors in business and MBA so my legal knowledge is limited especially outside of business law, so I'm up for more educated opinions.

I wonder why he believes this lawsuit is frivolous? An explanation would be great, as I can tell by his posting style he must hold himself in extremely high regard so surely his intellect could benefit us all

 

You're misusing that phrase. It does usually mean freedom from consequences when the government is imposing the consequences (and the speech at issue is protected). It doesn't mean freedom from consequences when private citizens are imposing the consequences.

 

Neither of those things can form the basis of a libel claim. I can stop doing business with you if I think you're a racist, even if I'm wrong. Oberlin's liability basically came down to claims that one of the deans was involved in distributing the pamphlet at the protest and the college posting the student senate resolution.

No, it was not frivolous. The plaintiff proved that McDonalds had numerous complaints about the temperature of their coffee and did nothing, that the coffee was too hot to even safely consume, and that she would have suffered far less serious injuries had the coffee been produced at a safer temperature.

The elderly woman was in a parked car (as a passenger), put the cup between her legs, and attempted to remove the lid to add cream and sugar. The coffee spilt all over her nether regions and legs and caused extraordinarily serious burns. She only asked McDonalds to pay her medical bills originally, and McDonalds essentially laughed in her face. It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit by some bad actor. However, McDonalds and other corporations spun it that way so they could push tort reform in order to protect their bottom lines and harm average Americans.