« Be Verwy Quiet... | Main | "You Bad!" »

April 03, 2009

For a Second I Thought I Was Reading Uris' QB VII

It was like they pulled the damages award for Bingley's favorite prof right off the page.

Jury Says Professor Was Wrongly Fired

... But the jury, which deliberated for a day and a half, awarded only $1 in damages to the former professor...


And THAT was 99ยข too much.

Posted by tree hugging sister at April 3, 2009 10:55 AM

Comments

They awarded him $1 in damages!

Oh man what a slap. That is sweet.

Still, I wish they'd found him guilty of plagiarism (he probably IS) and justified the university for firing his ass.

People like HIM give people like ME (I am also a college professor) a bad name.

Posted by: ricki at April 3, 2009 11:38 AM

I'm just so disgusted by this turd I can't comment.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at April 3, 2009 11:58 AM

The problem is that now they've found in favor of Dickless he can get his old job back.

Posted by: Cullen at April 3, 2009 02:16 PM

True that, Cullen. But unless his lawyer was working pro bono, the jerk is out fees, costs, AND back wages. So there's a little satisfaction.

It would be best to bounce this turkey out onto the street. But that ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: JeffS at April 3, 2009 02:49 PM

The University of Colorado has to pay Churchill's fees, costs, and back wages in addition to the $1, Jeffs. This is not as small a judgement as it sounds like in the headline.

Posted by: Rob at April 3, 2009 06:45 PM

I missed that, Rob. Dang!

Posted by: JeffS at April 3, 2009 08:36 PM

That dollar should have been in the form of one hundred pennies loaded up in a sock.

Posted by: Gunslinger at April 3, 2009 09:23 PM

One dollar is the traditional award of "nominal damages" when a civil jury finds the defendant liable but that the damages are so slight as to be essentially meaningless. The problem here is that, yeah, nonetheless, it's a judgment in Churchill's favor and will probably get him his job back. Unless there are grounds for appeal: I assume the jury's findings of fact over in civil court where there's no double jeopardy can be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but perhaps there are other issues in the conduct of the trial that an appellate court could look at de novo.

Posted by: Dave J at April 4, 2009 08:11 PM

OT:

Thanks for the wine suggestion, Bing.

I bought a Peter Vella box on Friday evening.

It is exquisite (especially for $13).

Posted by: Gunslinger at April 4, 2009 11:34 PM