SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Ohio jury has ordered Oberlin College to pay $11 million to a bakery which said it was libeled and wrongfully accused of racially profiling students.
The case stems from the November 2016 arrests of three black Oberlin students at Gibson's Bakery and market near the college's campus in Oberlin, Ohio. One student, Jonathan Aladin, was accused of attempted robbery for allegedly trying to "steal wine or otherwise illegally obtain wine" from the bakery, according to a defamation lawsuit. He would eventually confess in a written statement to buying alcohol illegally. Two other suspects, Cecelia Whettston and Endia J. Lawrence, were arrested and accused of misdemeanor assault, court documents state.
After that, Oberlin staff members tried to discredit the family-owned bakery, the lawsuit says. Oberlin College staff -- including deans and professors -- and students engaged in demonstrations in front of Gibson's Bakery following the arrests of the three students, the lawsuit stated. The suit also said Oberlin Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo and other college staff members "handed out hundreds of copies" of a flier to the community and the media stating that Gibson's Bakery and its owners racially profiled and discriminated against the three students.
A mass email sent by Oberlin College's Vice President and General Counsel to school alumni criticized the decision of the jury, despite the trial not being over. The email was sent ahead of a punitive damages hearing, which may triple the amount Oberlin College has to pay.
Also at Inside Higher Ed.
Update: Bakery suing Oberlin College for libel wins $33M in damages
Oberlin College hit with maximum PUNITIVE DAMAGES (capped at $22 million by law) in Gibson's Bakery case
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:54AM (1 child)
But the complaint said that a judge had invalidated the pleas.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:06PM
Seriously? Learn to read and comprehend. From page 4 of the complaint PDF linked in TFS:
The judge invalidated the pleas on December 14, 2016. Then on page 20 of the complaint:
The complaint goes on to note the statements they submitted at that time (8 months later). Basically, it sounds like the judge invalidated the pleas the first time around because he felt that the publicity and Oberlin's position might be exerting undue influence on the bakery's willingness to accept the reduced charges. The judge felt if the bakery (and perhaps the prosecutors) didn't go along with supporting such a plea, they would potentially be subject to further retribution from the college and students (e.g., implying that the bakery was racist for pushing for overcharging).
It sounds like they were later able to come to a plea agreement that satisfied the judge if those charged willingly signed statements saying they didn't believe the crime was racially motivated, thereby relieving some of the tension and absolving the bakery of the racial accusation.
At least, that's what the complaint timeline seems to imply (as well as some news coverage). If so, it's important to recognize that the statements mentioned in TFA from those involved in the shoplifting incident about how the crimes weren't racially motivated were likely made under pressure -- if the students didn't make said statements, they likely could have gone to trial (one on felony charges). Not that that should have absolved Oberlin from its egregious behavior at all -- it's just not like the students freely offered a statement saying racial motivation didn't play a role as a neutral commentary on the case.