(06-08-2019 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

Also in beyond the student government passing a vote, the school itself joined the subsequent boycott. Still, only tortious for the 'interference in contract' issues.

But the kicker is that the aforementioned dean directly participated in the onsite protests and was active in in handing out leaflets that were found to be defamatory. I would assume the plaintiffs produced evidence that tended to show that the dean's actions went outside the dean's role as a private citizen and as of a representative of the institution. At that point the liability imputes to the school as well.

And, to be blunt, Oberlin the school has not been shy 'politically' for the last decent number of years.

Also, indemnification clauses typically dont cover intentional torts. But that creates a real catch 22 for Oberlin itself -- if the clause is a standard one (and the school's attorneys should be sued for malpractice if it isnt), then if they challenge the indemnification clause, then they are literally cutting the dean off at the knees -- they are saying 'not in the scope' and we aren't involved. But to do so is notably self-serving and not really worth spit in evidence. If they don't challenge the clause, thay can be taken as an admission that the dean's actions are indeed the school's actions.