Posted on 04/02/2009 3:39:11 PM PDT by Pondo
Ward Churchill won his case against the University of Colorado today as a Denver jury unanimously decided he was fired in retaliation for his controversial essay on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The jury gave Churchill $1 for
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
Unbelievable these people are like Osamabama Voters.
Time for the University to play hardball. Sue Churchill for having misrepresented himself as being of native American descent.
I’m telling ya.. When the secessions start I won’t be staying in NJ!
This is why you should always refuse to agree to follow the jury instructions when you are on voir dire for sitting on a jury.
If they followed every stinking instructionnobody would ever be found guilty of anything. The judicial system is premised on madness.
Not pleased about this, but it’s possible the university dropped the ball - procedurely speaking - in firing Churchill. I learned long ago that you have to have all your ducks in a row when trying to terminate a troublemaking employee.
Alternately, the jurors might just be a bunch of friggin’ idiots. Plagiarism is about as serious a career-related offense as it gets for an academic (or it is supposed to be).
at least if your a leftist
Wardo victoriously clutched his little $1 prize, which is ironic in pure form as it is the legal tender of his so-called ‘’Little Eichmans’’ and nation for whom - and of which - he has such miserable contempt. This idiot narcissist will probably frame mount or scrapbook the bill for his posterity and prize, thusly, ‘’In God We Trust’’ and the currency of his enemies will be his just and final reward of irony (which he will likely very blindly treasure); a $1 note, forever smiling back at him.
Remember, his attorneys will get at least a third of that.
The problem is that once this dope gets back on campus, his liberal allies on the faculty would continue to elevate his status again.
I think we should appoint him to Secretary of Education. Toss the guy from Chicago. We need Ward Churchill at Education. Let’s illustrate absurdity with more absurdity.
Should have given him a shell necklace.
I heard Ward Churchill on the radio this morning saying that a court had ruled that he was wrongly dismissed, so it logically follows that the University has to rehire him. He’s following the playbook of fellow “second-hander” Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead, using the law to try to keep a job in which he goes out of his way to harm his employer. Scum of the earth both.
Do you have a case name? The press here is still saying he can get fees.
Farrar v. Hobby 506 US 103 (1992)
See my post #62 on this thread for the relevant language from the Supreme Court.
A quick look at cases decided since indicates the courts have since been busily finding ways to open that door wider and wider, especially in so-called "mixed motives" employment termination cases. See GUDENKAUF v. STAUFFER COMMUNICATIONS, INC, 158 P.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 1998).
Also bear in mind this was tried in state court and any appeals will end up in the hyper-liberal, Democrat dominated Colorado Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Farrar must be applied consistently with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B), the statute governing the award of an attorney's fee in a mixed motive case such as this one, i.e. a mixed motive case in which a plaintiff proves illegal discrimination was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action, see id. § 2000e-2(m), but the fact finder determines the employer would have taken the adverse action even absent the illegal motive. In 1989, the Supreme Court held that "once a plaintiff in a Title VII case shows that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant may avoid a finding of liability only by proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not allowed gender to play such a role." Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 244-45 (1989). Partly in response to the Price Waterhouse ruling, under which an employer could avoid liability altogether even if illegal discrimination factored into his employment decision, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991.(3) Section 107 of the 1991 Act overturned Price Waterhouse on this point by amending 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 to make clear that an employer is liable for a violation of Title VII upon proof that an impermissible motive played a role in the challenged action. The new subsection states: "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).
Gudenkauf was an employment discrimination case based upon sex. I would argue that it is not on point with a 42 USC 1983 action, and that the issues in Churchill are more akin to those underlying in Farrar because in both cases it was found that the plaintiff was deprived a civil right (as opposed to being discriminated against as of the suspect classes in the Section 2000 actions) and awarded nominal damages, and both were decided under the attorneys' fees language of tha 1983 section of the code.
And, yes, unfortunately, the Colo. Supreme Court is a problem.
Betcha a breakfast of chipped beef on toast Naves gives Churchill a fee award of some kind.
It will be interesting to see (and if you want chipped beef, I’ll be happy to pay!).
The fee portion would actually be a very interesting part of the case to brief.
I'm also dying to know what Lane's fee deal is, if he would keep all of a fee award or if it's subject to the contingency split too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.