Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College - running out the string

Oberlin now has 36 million reasons they cannot flee to consider the error of their ways.

Last Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court ruling that Oberlin College must pay a $36 million judgment to Gibson's Bakery, a family-owned and operated business that Oberlin was found to have defamed. This decision upheld an earlier verdict that Oberlin had libeled Gibson's Bakery in the aftermath of a 2016 shoplifting incident involving three black Oberlin students.

During the November 2016 incident, a member of the Gibson family (and store employee) confronted a male student who, along with two female accomplices, had attempted to shoplift two bottles of wine upon being refused a purchase with a fake ID. When the Gibson's employee attempted to call the police a violent scuffle ensued. When the police arrived they found the Gibson's employee on the ground being kicked by all three students.

All three students were subsequently arrested and later pleaded guilty to theft and other misdemeanors related to assault on the Gibson's employee. None of the students received any jail time. All three issued statements, as part of a plea bargain, to the effect that Gibson's actions were reasonable and were not racially motivated.

Shoplifting is unfortunately and distressingly common – even in a small place like Oberlin (population 8000). Indeed, other small businesses in the area had reported losses due to shoplifting during the same time amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. Given all of this, most reasonable people would conclude that a deal involving a guilty plea, an accurate statement of events, some community service and a promise to play nice in the future as a good outcome for the students.

But not the brain trust at Oberlin. Not by a long shot.

Administrators at Oberlin, while fully and completely aware of the facts of the case, suspended business with the bakery and encouraged a student boycott of Gibson's by fanning a false narrative that the employees of Gibson's had racially profiled the students who'd shoplifted.

While the administration and legal counsel at Oberlin have come to strongly dispute this version of events, long after the fact, by claiming that they merely chose not to interfere with their student's first amendment rights, a voluminous chain of evidence clearly shows otherwise. Their goal was to punish Gibson's in order to pander to their students. Instead of being adults in the room, they were co-conspirators in a scheme to defame a local business over stupors and vapors.

It's abundantly clear that former Dean of Students, Meredith Rainmondo and others actively encouraged students to financially punish Gibson's Bakery through a combination of pickets, boycotts and severance of contracts. Gibson's attempted to negotiate in good faith with the students and the school but to no avail. At one point the student government at Oberlin even attempted to strong-arm Gibson's by offering to stop the protests if Gibson's would agree to no longer prosecute first-time shoplifters.

After voluntary talks failed, Gibson's did what most of you would hope that they would do – they told Oberlin College to go pound sand. They then sought relief in the courts, suing for libel and breach of contract.

Oberlin adopted a very curious, at least to those who know little about how higher education works, defensive posture. They went after members of their own faculty who were defending, rightfully, Gibson's Bakery. Their legal strategy has been described by several analysts as legal malpractice. A string of legal defeats were followed by appeal after appeal - an apparent attempt by Oberlin to run out the string. Until now. Barring the most unlikely of circumstances, Oberlin must pay Gibson's $36 million in damages.

I mentioned earlier that Oberlin's legal strategy was curious only to those with little exposure to how higher education works. Let me explain.