ELYRIA, Ohio — The family at the center of a defamation lawsuit against Oberlin College hugged in celebration on Thursday when a jury granted them $33 million in punitive damages on top of the $11 million compensatory award they’re already owed by the liberal arts school.
The newly decided punitive damages — money awarded to plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit to punish defendants and deter future bad conduct — were broken down by the jury into $17.5 million for David Gibson, $8.75 million for family patriarch Allyn Gibson, and $6.97 million for their company, Gibson Bros, Inc.
The family sued Oberlin following an incident on Nov. 9, 2016, in which a black college student attempted to shoplift wine from Gibson’s Bakery. A grandson of the family also named Allyn Gibson, who is white, followed the student out, leading to a physical altercation in front of the store. The student and two friends — who were also black — were then arrested.
Protests erupted on campus in the days following, with students claiming that the robbery charge and subsequent conflict were racially motivated, as well as claiming a history of racial profiling in the store.
The arrested students later backtracked on those claims and pleaded guilty to misdemeanors in court, and the Gibsons brought a lawsuit against both Oberlin College and Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. The suit alleged libel and accused the school of supporting the students’ harmful actions and cutting economic ties with the bakery.
Last week a Lorain County Common Pleas Court jury ruled in favor of the Gibson family, awarding them $11 million for past and future economic and non-economic harm and loss. Then Oberlin College’s financial hit got even worse on Thursday when the institution was ordered to pay the punitive damages — plus undetermined attorney fees.
“For a family like ours, when you are in small business, your business, your family, your reputation is all one ... That’s what takes us to the next day, and we’re proud of it,” David Gibson told The Blade after the verdict.
Gibson attorneys underscored that punitive damages are meant to discourage not only Oberlin, but any other institution from committing similar acts.
Oberlin Attorney Rachelle Zidar argued a punitive damages award is not necessary to motivate change, as the college and its dean have already learned from the experience.
She also reminded the jury that any punitive damages will “impact people who have nothing to do” with the trial, including employees and future students on financial aid.
In Ohio, there is a cap that ensures a punitive award is no more than double the amount of compensatory damages — which in this case means a punishment of $22 million or less.
Because the award of $33.2 million is above the punitive damages cap, Lee Plakas, lead attorney for the Gibson family, said motions will probably be filed to lower the award.
A contentious piece of evidence during the trial was a flyer printed and handed out by students during November, 2016, protests against Gibson’s Bakery. The flyer read “DON’T BUY” and “This is a RACIST establishment with a long account of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION. Today we urge you to shop elsewhere in light of a particularly heinous event involving the owners of this establishment and local law enforcement.”
In their original complaint, the Gibson family accused the school of being involved with the preparation and publication of the flyer, and accused Ms. Raimondo of personally handing out the flyers to others.
Attorneys for Oberlin argued that the flyer was published by students, and that for administrators — those with decision-making power and those on trial — the flyer “could not possibly” constitute actual malice on their behalf.
Also widely discussed as evidence was the temporary suspension of Oberlin’s daily order from Gibson’s Bakery. On Nov. 14, 2016, Ms. Raimondo stopped the orders, beginning a suspension that lasted until Jan. 20, 2017.
Ms. Zidar argued the college’s temporary suspension of orders with the bakery was an attempt to “press the pause button,” not an attempt to injure the Gibson family.
Upon being asked by Oberlin Director of Dining Michele Gross what the school would do about Gibson-provided dough for a dining hall’s pizza, Ms. Raimondo texted back: “Ugh. Is there anything else we can do? Students at the protest have already announced for the dining services to sever ties. I’m trying to buy time.”
“Does that sound like hatred? Does that sound like spite?” Ms. Zidar asked, arguing that Ms. Raimondo was simply trying to “figure out what to do” and stop the protests.
Ms. Zidar also told the jury Wednesday that the school had been making changes even before the trial started, more closely monitoring the activities of student organizations and the college’s response to protests. Additionally, she said the school is increasing oversight of its student senate and the resolutions it passes, as well as improving internal communications and clarifying to students how they can be held accountable for their own actions and have a duty to be good citizens.
In hearing evidence for the punitive damages phase, the Gibsons’ legal team capitalized on an argument that was disallowed in the compensatory phase of the trial: Oberlin College’s wealth.
Gibson attorney Owen Rarric pointed out that the college has more than $1.4 billion in total assets, with an endowment of $887 million. He stated that annual student charges for tuition and room and board are roughly $70,000.
Oberlin attorney Matthew Nakon clarified Mr. Rarric’s numeric claims, saying the college has been operating in an unsustainable deficit situation year after year caused largely by substantial declines in enrollment. Mr. Nakon said outside a small portion — less than $50 million of the endowment — the college has little to no discretion over how the endowment is spent.
Instead, individual donors hold this discretion. He added that roughly 90 percent of Oberlin students are on scholarships.
After the hearing, Mr. Rarric said that the truth prevailed on Thursday.
“When powerful institutions follow their agendas rather than the truth ... and when they inflict harm on members of the community and don’t accept responsibility for that harm, every once in a while you’re going to have some brave souls — like the Gibson family and this jury — who will say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” he said. “[They] will say, ‘We’re not going to tolerate this in our society’ and that we're going to hold you accountable.”
However Kameron Dunbar, a member of Oberlin’s Class of 2019 and the communications chairman for the student senate at the time of the protests, said the case’s outcome should not be celebrated.
"It brings about concerns of free speech principles — specifically the right of students to assemble for protests, the repercussions for institutions, the liability of an institution that doesn’t censor its members’ speech,” he said. “I think those are real questions.”
Lawyers for Oberlin said they could not comment after the trial.
Staff writer Asha Prihar contributed to this report.
First Published June 13, 2019, 7:36 p.m.
