8 ms·

I am not all sympathetic to Oberlin, but this judgement is absurd. It is many many lifetimes of income for a small bakery. Even if they were forced into bankrup

I am not all sympathetic to Oberlin, but this judgement is absurd. It is many many lifetimes of income for a small bakery. Even if they were forced into bankruptcy, this is beyond the pale. "The latest amount consists of about $5 million in compensatory damages, nearly $20 million in punitive damages, $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and almost $5 million in interest." This only contributes to our litigious society where lawyers get rich through shakedowns, and we as citizens and consumers shoulder the price either through increased overhead that is passed on to us, or ever more absurd disclaimers and risk mitigation measures to prevent from frivolous suits. So I am glad Oberlin lost overall, but the size of this judgement makes me very sad.

dmitrygr 4y ago
That is what punitive damages are - they are not required to be connected to the size of the damage, they are meant to punish the defendant for royally (in the judge's view) fucking up, and send a message to other similar defendants to not do such things And $5M in compensatory damages seems about right for 2 years of a successful small bakery
- lajamerr 4y ago
  Honestly I'm not very keen on pinning blame/monetary responsibility on single individuals/companies to 'prevent/deter' unknown future crimes. We shouldn't be signaling with big punishments bigger than the crimes call for. We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others. Why should I get 30 years for a crime that should be 5 years because they want to send a signal. Make it fair and make it equal. Edit: Apparently this is a unpopular opinion. All I am calling for is that punishment meets the crime. Not meets the crime and exceeds it in order to prevent unrelated parties from committing the same crime. They aren't my responsibility.
  - unwise-exe 4y ago
    > We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others. I'd think that having your standard practice be to make sure it wasn't worth it would find the same amount as the threshhold for both deterring the current perpetrator and deterring others.
    - lajamerr 4y ago
      There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. It's all about intentions. And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. It's barbaric behavior. Like cutting the hand off a thief so others know what will happen if they get caught stealing.
      - unwise-exe 4y ago
        > amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them That's not how it works, it's about getting the accountants or lawyers or whoever to tell that person's boss "this can be expected to cost us $XXXX".
        lajamerr 4y ago
        Lawyers are sophisticated bunch they know these amounts will garner taglines. Do you honestly believe that these lawyers/judges don't incorporate public perception into their accounts of what they think a fitting punishment is and use them as a way to lead public policy/deterrence for particular crimes?
      - Georgelemental 4y ago
        > And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. Deterrence is the whole point of punishing crime. Every society in human history has done this. It's not "barbaric," what's "barbaric" is allowing criminals to do horrible things to innocent people without any incentive against it.
rayiner 4y ago
The judgment is mostly punitive damages and legal fees. Which seem warranted. A university with a billion dollar endowment manufactured claims of racism to destroy a small business. It didn’t just hurt the bakery, but the community at large. Manufacturing racism for political ends is socially harmful conduct just like the other sorts of conduct that warrants punitive damages.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Punitive damages in this case were around 2x economic damages, which came out to around $12MM. Gibson's wasn't just a bakery; they also owned a bunch of rental property in the area, and those interests were also harmed. The award does not appear tied to Oberlin's "billion dollar endowment" and, as we can see from their statement, hasn't even touched it. Later Nope, I'm wrong: the total punitive damages awarded to the Gibson were closer to 1x economic damages --- Oberlin got to 36MM by appealing and putting themselves on the hook for an additional 6MM in legal fees. Also, I should be saying "compensatory" and not "economic", since there's a bunch of compensatory damage categories that aren't economic.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
"Punitive damages". The problem is the power asymmetry between the powerful and the weak. You address that by making it too expensive from the powerful's perspective, not by making it equitable from the weak's perspective.
rahimnathwani 4y ago
> This only contributes to our litigious society where lawyers get rich through shakedowns Even if the lawyers were to receive 100% of the payouts from these cases, we the public still benefit: the threat of these types of lawsuits prevents other similar abuses.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  Indeed, and this is not in any way a shakedown. It is, in fact, an example of a victory over the mirror-image scenario, where a well-endowed entity rides roughshod over ordinary people by threatening to ruin them before, or even if, justice prevails.
jballer 4y ago
This reporting about the depths the Gibsons were hurled into, just to serve as scapegoats without any evidence of wrongdoing, might change your mind. The activists perpetuating the boycott were right about one thing: this is about way more than a single event or a single venue. https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin-accused-the-gibsons-of-racism-now-it-owes-them-dollar36-million https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
atdrummond 4y ago
$5 million in compensatory damages is far from a lifetime of income for this store. They did a very good business before Oberlin drag them through the mud and were a staple for town and gown alike. It wasn’t just a cookie and cake shop.
sidewndr46 4y ago
Hence the punitive damages. It doesn't go nearly far enough. Even if Oberlin College had to pay the $36 million (spoiler: it does not and this will never effect it financially) it would barely notice it. To truly deter this kind of behavior, at least 40% of their endowment should be taken as punitive damages. They should be put in a bad enough situation financially that they need a bailout.
crackercrews 4y ago
> So I am glad Oberlin lost overall, but the size of this judgement makes me very sad. If it had been a much smaller amount then the college would not care about losing one bit. They might even revel in losing as a way of burnishing their activist bona fides. It would be like a marketing expense if it were an order of magnitude lower.
nullc 4y ago
The compensatory damages were based on an expert economic analysis, forward projecting 30 years of income based on the fact that the business had been operating since 1885. The damages weren't just to the bakery-- the bakers also owned two apartment buildings that were used as off campus housing by students and their income was damaged there as well. The fact that Oberlin's misconduct has has zero serious consequences for the institution or the culpable staff shows that the punitive damages were far too small. There is little incentive to change their practices to avoid similar incidents in the future.
bruceb 4y ago
Its unfortunate you are getting down voted. Yours is a legitimate comment, people are free to disagree but down voting is for comments that are flame bait garbage, not just because one disagrees.

dmitrygr 4y ago

That is what punitive damages are - they are not required to be connected to the size of the damage, they are meant to punish the defendant for royally (in the judge's view) fucking up, and send a message to other similar defendants to not do such things And $5M in compensatory damages seems about right for 2 years of a successful small bakery

lajamerr 4y ago
Honestly I'm not very keen on pinning blame/monetary responsibility on single individuals/companies to 'prevent/deter' unknown future crimes. We shouldn't be signaling with big punishments bigger than the crimes call for. We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others. Why should I get 30 years for a crime that should be 5 years because they want to send a signal. Make it fair and make it equal. Edit: Apparently this is a unpopular opinion. All I am calling for is that punishment meets the crime. Not meets the crime and exceeds it in order to prevent unrelated parties from committing the same crime. They aren't my responsibility.
- unwise-exe 4y ago
  > We should carefully consider the crime based on the individual and how much punishment is appropriate for that individual to compensate the victim/deter that single individual/company from continuing that future behavior. Not to stop others. I'd think that having your standard practice be to make sure it wasn't worth it would find the same amount as the threshhold for both deterring the current perpetrator and deterring others.
  - lajamerr 4y ago
    There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. It's all about intentions. And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. It's barbaric behavior. Like cutting the hand off a thief so others know what will happen if they get caught stealing.
    - unwise-exe 4y ago
      > amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them That's not how it works, it's about getting the accountants or lawyers or whoever to tell that person's boss "this can be expected to cost us $XXXX".
      - lajamerr 4y ago
        Lawyers are sophisticated bunch they know these amounts will garner taglines. Do you honestly believe that these lawyers/judges don't incorporate public perception into their accounts of what they think a fitting punishment is and use them as a way to lead public policy/deterrence for particular crimes?
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      > And I don't want my government prosecuting people and giving them high sentences just to deter other people. Deterrence is the whole point of punishing crime. Every society in human history has done this. It's not "barbaric," what's "barbaric" is allowing criminals to do horrible things to innocent people without any incentive against it.

rayiner 4y ago

The judgment is mostly punitive damages and legal fees. Which seem warranted. A university with a billion dollar endowment manufactured claims of racism to destroy a small business. It didn’t just hurt the bakery, but the community at large. Manufacturing racism for political ends is socially harmful conduct just like the other sorts of conduct that warrants punitive damages.

tptacek 4y ago
Punitive damages in this case were around 2x economic damages, which came out to around $12MM. Gibson's wasn't just a bakery; they also owned a bunch of rental property in the area, and those interests were also harmed. The award does not appear tied to Oberlin's "billion dollar endowment" and, as we can see from their statement, hasn't even touched it. Later Nope, I'm wrong: the total punitive damages awarded to the Gibson were closer to 1x economic damages --- Oberlin got to 36MM by appealing and putting themselves on the hook for an additional 6MM in legal fees. Also, I should be saying "compensatory" and not "economic", since there's a bunch of compensatory damage categories that aren't economic.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

"Punitive damages". The problem is the power asymmetry between the powerful and the weak. You address that by making it too expensive from the powerful's perspective, not by making it equitable from the weak's perspective.

rahimnathwani 4y ago

> This only contributes to our litigious society where lawyers get rich through shakedowns Even if the lawyers were to receive 100% of the payouts from these cases, we the public still benefit: the threat of these types of lawsuits prevents other similar abuses.

mannykannot 4y ago
Indeed, and this is not in any way a shakedown. It is, in fact, an example of a victory over the mirror-image scenario, where a well-endowed entity rides roughshod over ordinary people by threatening to ruin them before, or even if, justice prevails.

jballer 4y ago

This reporting about the depths the Gibsons were hurled into, just to serve as scapegoats without any evidence of wrongdoing, might change your mind. The activists perpetuating the boycott were right about one thing: this is about way more than a single event or a single venue. https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin-accused-the-gibsons-of-racism-now-it-owes-them-dollar36-million https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/e765b3b3/oberlin...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

atdrummond 4y ago

$5 million in compensatory damages is far from a lifetime of income for this store. They did a very good business before Oberlin drag them through the mud and were a staple for town and gown alike. It wasn’t just a cookie and cake shop.

sidewndr46 4y ago

Hence the punitive damages. It doesn't go nearly far enough. Even if Oberlin College had to pay the $36 million (spoiler: it does not and this will never effect it financially) it would barely notice it. To truly deter this kind of behavior, at least 40% of their endowment should be taken as punitive damages. They should be put in a bad enough situation financially that they need a bailout.

crackercrews 4y ago

> So I am glad Oberlin lost overall, but the size of this judgement makes me very sad. If it had been a much smaller amount then the college would not care about losing one bit. They might even revel in losing as a way of burnishing their activist bona fides. It would be like a marketing expense if it were an order of magnitude lower.

nullc 4y ago

The compensatory damages were based on an expert economic analysis, forward projecting 30 years of income based on the fact that the business had been operating since 1885. The damages weren't just to the bakery-- the bakers also owned two apartment buildings that were used as off campus housing by students and their income was damaged there as well. The fact that Oberlin's misconduct has has zero serious consequences for the institution or the culpable staff shows that the punitive damages were far too small. There is little incentive to change their practices to avoid similar incidents in the future.

bruceb 4y ago

Its unfortunate you are getting down voted. Yours is a legitimate comment, people are free to disagree but down voting is for comments that are flame bait garbage, not just because one disagrees.