Ward Churchill Wins Wrongful Termination Suit: $1.00 Damages

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:05:37 PM EST
Tags: Ward Churchill (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jury finds Ward Churchill was only fired for his 9/11 essay. Damages: $1.00. CU will have to pay Churchill's attorney's fees. Still to be determined at separate hearing (not by the jury): Whether Churchill gets his job back or whether he gets lump-sum settlement instead.

Churchill attorney David Lane didn't ask the jury for money, but "to do justice." He says this is a vindication for the First Amendment and academic freedom and was never about money. But, as I said earlier, he will get attorney fees.

Great tweeting of the verdict (More twitter coverage here.) The local television coverage was dismal.[More....]

******

The jury verdict in the Ward Churchill wrongful termination case is in and about to be read. Since the jury had a question earlier on damages, I'm assuming they found in his favor.

Apparently, one juror wanted to give him zero and was told he had to get at least $1.00. But that juror may have been a holdout:

In addition the jury also asked the judge whether, in light of the fact that apparently five of the six jurors have already decided on a dollar amount, could the jury conceivably ask for the lone holdout to be replaced with an alternate juror? Judge Naves again said no.

They are in the courtroom, reading the verdict.

< Thursday Afternoon News and Open Thread | Former Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Brother, Aides Indicted >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Ward Churchill Wins Wrongful Termination Suit: $1.00 Damages | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 09:49:19 PM EST

I've seen the evidence of plagiarism, it's pretty serious academic fraud in my book. This verdict doesn't do much to change my mind.

Really? (none / 0) (#20)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:19:15 AM EST

Do you have links to the actualmaterial in question, and not merely to sites that insist Ward Churchill committed plagiarism while offering us select out-of-context quotes which supposedly support their contention?

I ask this in all seriousness, because I never read any of that stuff, but I'd like to and then judge for myself.

True story: A good number of years after I had graduated from the University of Washington, I learned that I had been a bona fide documented victim of plagiarism, committed by an historian for the U.S. National Park Service who -- completely unbeknownst to me -- had literally published verbatim, under his own name in an internal NPS journal that was not in public circulation, a paper I had once written for an undergraduate U.S. history class.

His own wife had been my professor for that class, and to this day I don't know whether she had offered the paper to him, or whether he had lifted it from her when she brought it home to read and grade (she gave me an A).

Nevertheless, I do know that she never said anything about it contemporaneously to the act, but a number of years later decided to use it against her husband during some particularly bitter divorce proceedings. She exposed his intellectual larceny to his bosses at the NPS, who in turn contacted me about it.

I had just turned 30 at the time, and while I did remember the paper in question, I told officials that I had long since divested myself of any copy. I later learned that the professor's husband was eventually terminated by the Park Service over the incident. Plagiarism is indeed a very serious matter in the academic world.

[ Parent ]

I ofer no opinion (none / 0) (#21)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 11:34:10 AM EST

And it is Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but here is the background on the plagiarism and other charges against him.


[ Parent ]

Nobody ever gets on Dershowitz (none / 0) (#22)
by jondee on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:36:26 PM EST

for plagiarism even though, in his case, there's stronger evidence for it.

See: The Case for Israel controversy.

[ Parent ]

: You may have a point (none / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:47:24 PM EST

But as far I as know, he wasn't fired for his plagiarism and then claimed it was because it was of what he said.

[ Parent ]

Tenure is neccessary so that teachers (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Dark Avenger on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 09:49:35 PM EST

and professors can do research and publish without being fired for their opinions or being on the wrong side, as happened with many professors of German and German-born teachers during WWI.

so it protects conservatives? (none / 0) (#25)
by diogenes on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:50:16 PM EST

The people who hold minority views in universities these days are usually conservatives who usually don't get tenure track positions except for the "token conservative".
If a college fires a nobel winner for his views presumably a hundred other colleges will take him. I doubt if Ward Churchill could get another job at another college given his dubious, plagierizing merits, which proves a point.

[ Parent ]

: It's to protect anyone, conservative (none / 0) (#27)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:06:10 PM EST

or liberal from political pressures of the moment.

If a college fires a nobel winner for his views presumably a hundred other colleges will take him.
Actually, it's just as wrong to fire a Nobel Prize winner for their political views whether they can find 100s of institutions to work for afterwards or not.
I doubt if Ward Churchill could get another job at another college given his dubious, plagierizing merits, which proves a point.
That's a different matter than freedom of speech, as plagiarizing is an academic offense and if proven should be grounds for termination. If you go through the threads on Ward Churchill you'll find I haven't changed my position in the past few years.

[ Parent ]

I agree that tenure is (none / 0) (#26)
by NYShooter on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:55:58 PM EST

necessary in cases where one's exercising his/her first amendment rights could jeopardize one's job. However, I don't think 1'st amendment rights are the focal point of most critics of tenure. Tenure has grown into a giant umbrella, or "free pass card" for actions that the overwhelming majority of non-teacher employees don't enjoy. Why, for instance, are laziness, incompetence, disinterest, and malfeasance protected by "Tenure?"

And to claim that there are "procedures" in place to address those things only adds salt to the wound.

[ Parent ]

It's like the suit James McNeil Whistler (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Dark Avenger on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:23:35 PM EST

filed against the critic John Ruskin for libel:

In 1877 Whistler sued the critic John Ruskin for libel after the critic condemned his painting Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket. Whistler exhibited the work in the Grosvenor Gallery, an alternative to the Royal Academy exhibition, alongside Edward Burne-Jones and other artists. Ruskin, who had been a champion of the Pre-Raphaelites and J. M. W. Turner, reviewed Whistler's work in his publication Fors Clavigera on the July 2nd, 1877. Ruskin praised Burne-Jones, while he attacked Whistler:

For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay [founder of the Grosvenor Gallery] ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of willful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face.[61]

.....................

Whistler had counted on many artists to take his side as witnesses but they refused fearing damage to their reputations. The other witnesses for him were unconvincing and the jury's own reaction to the work was derisive. With Ruskin's witnesses more impressive, including Edward Burne-Jones, and with Ruskin absent for medical reasons, Whistler's counter-attack was ineffective. Nonetheless, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Whistler but awarded a mere farthing in nominal damages, and the court costs were split.

That was fast! (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:06:25 PM EST

How long were they out - long enough to get lunch?

they went out around noon yesterday (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:07:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: So, about a day or a little more, then? (none / 0) (#4)
by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:14:48 PM EST

That seems a reasonable amount of time, particularly since the NYT seems to state there was some dispute about the quantum (Asking if they could award no damages, one juror who won't agree, etc.)

[ Parent ]

Here's what the NYT says: (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:09:09 PM EST

in its coverage here:

Around 3 p.m. local time on Thursday, jurors asked the judge a couple of questions about the awarding of damages. This would suggest that they had perhaps resolved the question of whether Mr. Churchill's wrongful termination suit had merit.
First, they asked whether it was possible to award no damages. A few minutes later, they asked whether, if all but one jury member could agree on a dollar amount, that person could be replaced by another juror. (The answer was no.)
The jury then resumed deliberations.

: I like the headline on the TV report TL linked to (none / 0) (#5)
by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:16:58 PM EST

"Indicators favor...."
Talk about reading tea leaves....

[ Parent ]

question (none / 0) (#6)
by Bemused on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:41:53 PM EST

is it the law in colorado that the court and not the jury determines certain species of damages or did the parties agree to that?

Reinstatement is in the nature of equitable relief but back pay or future damages are legal relief, and usually determined by the jury along with any other damages,

never mind (none / 0) (#7)
by Bemused on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 05:45:22 PM EST

I see you have edited and clarified.

A great day for academic freedom. (none / 0) (#8)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 07:18:36 PM EST

The true test of any First Amendment case is whether those of us who despise what is being said will defend the right of its advocate to say it.

Ward Churchill, Ph.D., may very well be an obnoxious rectal cavity whose outspoken political views offend a lot of people, but as the jury's verdict rightly reflects, that was certainly no justification for the University of Colorado to fire him.

If occasionally being an a$$ is ever upheld as legitimate grounds for summary termination, doubtless three-quarters of us would find ourselves in the local unemployment lines every third week or so, while the other one-quarter of us would be terminally pollyannish and thus insufferable to even be around.

Aloha.

The local TV coverage... (none / 0) (#9)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 07:32:29 PM EST

...may be dismal, but you can practically hear the wingnuts blood pressure spiking in the comments at the Post. The Cutler trade is more newsworthy in this town, so I'm not surprised the talking heads aren't giving the verdict much attention.

Another loss for Owens, Caldara, Vincent and the rest of the Party of No. Hopefully a lesson learned for CU.

Whenever anyone says it's not about money, (none / 0) (#10)
by ytterby on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 08:27:35 PM EST

it's about money. The lawyer got paid.

: silly comment n/t (none / 0) (#12)
by NYShooter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 08:35:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: I'm sure (none / 0) (#19)
by Bemused on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:41:34 AM EST

his lawyers are glad attorney fees were awarded. Who wouldn't be? That doesn't mean the case was about the money from either of the party's perspective.
The jury verdict can be construed as implying "a pox on both your houses," but that they found the decision to fire Chuchill was based on his expressing his views and not on the academic fraud and plagiarism charges is significant. It doesn't necessarily mean the jury does not think he committed fraud; it means it didn't believe that was the cause for his firing.

[ Parent ]

plagierists and tenure (none / 0) (#11)
by diogenes on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 08:33:01 PM EST

Time to get rid of that whole rotten tenure system. Who, outside of tenured professors/teachers, is presumptively entitled to employment for life?

Silly (none / 0) (#18)
by eric on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:24:39 AM EST

Professors are in a unique position. The case for tenure is an old issue, and if you want to fight that one, you might as well question the abandonment of the gold standard or start investigating the communists in congress.

[ Parent ]

: unique? (none / 0) (#24)
by diogenes on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:47:04 PM EST

Many professors research/teach hard until they get tenure. Research quality often declines then, and many professors become teaching dead weight.

[ Parent ]

A classic case (none / 0) (#17)
by eric on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 01:19:19 AM EST

of principle. In my experience, people will often say that they want to pursue/defend a claim out of "principle" and that it isn't about the money. Mr. Churchill won his "principle" case.