(06-08-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2019 04:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2019 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, for the dean that was individually names -- dollars to donuts his personal insurance will refuse to pony up for damages. Bummer.

Take his house (I don't think Ohio has the same homestead exemption as Texas), take his bank accounts, take everything he has. Make the rest of his life a living hell. SOB deserves it.

Her* house.
Read that article and couldn’t quite figure out what the university itself did, can anyone explain? It was clear that the students falsely accused the bakery of racism due to the store owner shockingly not wanting their goods stolen, and that Oberlin reacted to the student reactions by removing them from campus stores. It seems like the verdict is mostly in response to the student senate passing a vote?
Weird story and an example of why false accusations can be so damaging.

Actually, reading the article more carefully, apparently there is a stipulation that Oberlin indemnify her, so they won't get her house or her bank accounts or anything else of hers. That's too bad, IMO, although that's probably the way it had to go down.

What Oberlin did was have deeper pockets than a bunch of students, so they got sued. Standard plaintiff's attorney practice, find the money and sue it. The article indicates that the jury found that Oberlin facilitated the actions taken by students against the Gibsons. That would be enough to get them into the suit.