Ward Churchill’s $1 Damage Award Said to Have Been Product of Jury Compromise

Thursday’s jury verdict in Ward Churchill’s lawsuit against the University of Colorado has given rise to a mystery: How is it that a jury could rule that the university had acted illegally in firing Mr. Churchill, and yet still award him only $1 in damages?

Five of the six members of the jury have told court officials they do not wish to speak with reporters about their thinking. But a sixth, Bethany Newill, called a local radio station, KHOW, last night and said the $1 judgment was the product of a compromise between a single holdout juror who believed Mr. Churchill should not receive any damages and five others who believed he should be awarded some significant amount, according to today’s edition of the Colorado Daily. Helping shape the jury’s verdict was Mr. Churchill’s decision to have his lawyers not specify how much money he wanted, as well as his insistence throughout the proceedings that all he wanted was to get his job back.

Mr. Churchill’s chief lawyer, David A. Lane, said today that he had heard similar accounts from other members of the panel. Patrick O’Rourke, a lawyer for the university, said jurors also have recalled being so divided to his legal team, but he said more than one member did not want Mr. Churchill to get any significant amount.

The jury had suggested it was stuck on the question of damages about an hour before its verdict was announced. At that point, the jury returned to the courtroom and asked Judge Larry J. Naves if it needed to be unanimous in its decision on damages and if awarding Mr. Churchill no money at all was an option. The judge replied that the decision needed to be unanimous and, if it decided in Mr. Churchill’s favor, needed to give him at least a nominal $1.