Coffee shop owner wins $4 million after Boise State contract dispute
- Sarah Jo Fendley filed a tort claim against Boise State University in 2021 after her contract was terminated over a 'thin blue line' flag.
- Fendley was awarded $4 million in damages after a jury ruled in her favor, while the university plans to appeal the decision.
- The case has been viewed as a significant victory for free speech and has sparked discussions about cancel culture in academic institutions.
In 2021, Sarah Jo Fendley, owner of Big City Coffee, filed a $10 million tort claim against Boise State University and several administrators after her contract was terminated due to the display of a 'thin blue line' flag. This flag was intended to honor her former fiancé, a police officer who was paralyzed in the line of duty. The controversy surrounding the flag led to significant backlash from students, resulting in the coffee shop's closure just 42 days after opening on campus. The legal battle saw most of Fendley's claims dismissed, but the lawsuit against two university administrators, Alicia Estey and Leslie Webb, proceeded to trial. After a lengthy process, Fendley was awarded $4 million, which included $3 million for damages related to business losses and emotional distress, and $1 million in punitive damages. The jury's decision was met with mixed reactions, with Fendley expressing gratitude for the outcome. Following the verdict, Estey and Webb announced plans to appeal the decision, asserting that their actions were in line with upholding First Amendment rights. This case has sparked discussions about free speech and institutional policies, with supporters of Fendley viewing the ruling as a significant victory against perceived cancel culture. The outcome has been praised by various political figures, including local Republican leaders, who see it as a rare instance of justice being served. The case highlights ongoing tensions between individual rights and institutional governance, particularly in academic settings, and raises questions about the implications for similar disputes in the future.