Update: Fired Columnist Wins Lawsuit

Self | March 6, 2003 | Igor Birman

[calif_reaganite]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MARCH 6, 2003

Contact: Christopher Mays 530-902-4444

Fired Conservative Columnist Wins Lawsuit; Editor-in-Chief Admits Guilt

Davis — Fired conservative columnist, Igor Birman, was awarded $583.33 in lost wages by the Yolo County Small Claims Court, after Fitzgerald Vo, his former employer and editor-in-chief of The California Aggie admitted breaching Birman's contract.

After a Court-requested mediation session, Vo acknowledged that Birman's dismissal on New Year's Day of 2003 was in violation of the terms of the employment contract that both sides signed in October 2002. Birman was then awarded the full amount of damages sought from the Aggie.

Birman was dismissed from his position as the sole conservative columnist at the Aggie, the daily student newspaper at UC Davis, by Fitzgerald Vo, despite a contract lasting until the end of June 2003. In his termination notice, Vo cited Birman's "tendency to enrage members of the opposing causes" as the reason for the dismissal. Shortly thereafter, Birman filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against the newspaper.

"I strongly believe that people should be held accountable for their actions," Birman said. "When Mr. Vo fired me, not only did he commit a travesty by silencing the only conservative voice at the Aggie, he actually broke the law. His reckless disregard for a binding contract was an inexcusable display of arrogance. Today, however, Mr. Vo was held responsible for his actions and justice was served," he added.

Birman further pointed out that he intends to donate the entire amount of the damages to the Young Conservatives Foundation. "When I filed this case, I was seeking a moral victory, not personal monetary gain. That goal has been accomplished. The money awarded will go towards strengthening the conservative movement both at UC Davis and across California, so that conservative thought is given an opportunity to grow in this climate of general hostility," Birman said.

The case is Birman vs. The California Aggie, C.V.CL 0353. Birman may be reached at 510-714-0440 and his contract, termination notice and the Court’s disposition will be made available upon request.

-30-

[Grampa Dave]

More good news!

[talleyman]

Chalk one up for the good guys bump

[Teacher317]

When Mr. Vo fired me, not only did he commit a travesty by silencing the only conservative voice at the Aggie, he actually broke the law.

Well, he may have broken Contract Law principles, but it is not illegal to breach a contract.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[farmfriend]

I'm glad he one. The left are trying so hard to silence the right. They believe in diversity as long as you agree with them.

[Roscoe]

Too bad there weren't punitive damages awarded.

[LibWhacker]

Vo cited Birman's "tendency to enrage members of the opposing causes"

Ha! Note it's an offense to enrage perverts, baby killers and traitors, but not an offense to enrage people who believe in some kind of morality; namely, conservatives.

[Mr_Peter]

You really attracted the best and brightest...

"but it is not illegal to breach a contract." Oh, and what is contract law all about...Teacher317,...not the law I hope!

"I'm glad he one." Me too farmfriend....

[Cicero]

Good. It won't shame them, because politically correct ideologues have no shame, but it's another public revelation of their intolerant and bigotry.

[Glenn]

but it is not illegal to breach a contract.

What? A contract is a legal agreement. To breach it is "illegal" by definition. Just what the hell do you teach?

[Roscoe]

Probably not contract law.

[mountaineer]

Breaching an employment contract is not considered a violation of law. Yes, I am a lawyer.

[theDentist]

Birman's "tendency to enrage members of the opposing causes" as the reason for the dismissal.

We need to create a FreeRepublic Conservative Hero award for Mr. Birman, and for other Right-minded individuals.

[Glenn]

Breaching an employment contract is not considered a violation of law. Yes, I am a lawyer.

Semantics. A legal agreement is a legal agreement, i.e., it is an agreement within the bounds of what agreements can be under the law. Failure to abide to a contract may not be a criminal violation, but it sure as hell is a civil violation? Yes?

[dark_lord]

Is that because it is civil versus criminal, and you are using the word "illegal" in the sense of breaking a criminal law?

[lawdude]

"Breaching an employment contract is not considered a violation of law. Yes, I am a lawyer."

I do believe it is in Arizona. At least in the sense it can result in a LAWSUIT! Remedies are available.

It is NOT (normally) a criminal matter unless under EEOC!

I am a lawyer, too!

[mountaineer]

"Illegal" in the sense of violating a law enacted by the appropriate legislative body. I'm unaware that any state legislature, for example, has passed a law saying that people who enter into contracts must comply with them. That's why we refer to it as the "common" law.

[Teacher317]

I taught 8th grade math... however, my Contracts Law professor has repeatedly stated that breaching contracts is not a criminal act. It happens all the time. As long as you pay non-breaching party for the loss they incurred (or the expected profit that you suddenly denied them), there is no crime.

Two private parties signing a contract does not create a new law whose violation qualifies as an "illegal" act.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

What about $$$ for pain & suffering????

[mountaineer]

With all due respect, duh! Yes, a breach of contract may result in a lawsuit, and persons damaged by same may file suit. But does that make a breach "illegal," in the usual sense of the word?

[mountaineer]

There's no money for pain and suffering in a breach of contract case unless you proceed under a tort theory, e.g., tortious interference with a contract. Even then, good luck.

[Landru]

I'm afraid this is a rather hollow victory.
If people are under the impression some kind of "bias" has been proven, they're woefully wrong.

The man was able to recoup a weeks pay, or so.
That's *it*.

Now had he sued in Superior Court (<--?) for punitive damages -- based upon an allegation he had been the victim of discrimination -- he proved was the direct result of his ideological belief(s)?
Fine. Great. Hallelujah!
I'd buy beers for the house.

But that's not what happened, here.

Moreover, to aggravate matters for this guy even worse?
I hope he didn't collect *any* UC benefits while between jobs, following his "illegal" termination.
Because if he did?
There's a very good possibility the State of California will come after him to be reimbursed the benefits they've paid him over the time covered by this "settlement."
With as broke as CA is, that scenario's highly likely.

So, he'd better hang on to that whopping $500 (& change) for a while, in lieu of *donating* it to anyone.

Sorry, I would've LOVED to have learned this guy had really let 'em have it.

...with both barrels.

[Mister Baredog]

awarded $583.33 in lost wages

What about the punitive damages, oh say , $50,000,000 so they won't do it again

[Notwithstanding]

Well, actually, it is a breach of "private law" (the "law" created by the contracting parties and binding upon them).

[r9etb]

Vo cited Birman's "tendency to enrage members of the opposing causes" as the reason for the dismissal.

The fact that a student newspaper column could "enrage members of opposing causes" should be meat and potatoes for a student paper.

Vo's a ho.

[Paleo Conservative]

Update: Fired Columnist Wins Lawsuit

I must have dyslexia. I thougt it said, "Fired Communist Wins Lawsuit."

[GretchenEE]

One could assume from the article that the columnist "gets" to return to his former post until his contract expires this June.

All together now: Can we say, "Hostile work environment!"

I'm glad he won. Blubba J. x42 and his mouthpiece, Joe Lockhart, ought to get a heads up out of this, rather than telling Rush Limbaugh to "shut his mouth" for dissenting with them. (Does blubba hate Rush or WHAT?)

[mdmathis6]

wasn't that the issue, that the plaintif wasn't paid what he was owed when the contract was breached?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Small Claims Court does not provide for that.

[DB]

A legally binding contract means exactly what it implies. If there were no "law" involved how does one take one to court to remedy its being broken?

[mrustow]

Mazel tov, on your victory!

[bytesmith]

Outstanding!