NY Times item here. As I noted in 2007--here and here--it seemed like Churchill had a strong case on the merits. I am glad to see that he prevailed, though the token damage award is a bit puzzling--perhaps as more information comes out it will be clearer what the reasoning was. (Is the jury expecting him to be reinstated since the firing was wrongful? Or did they want to say, "He was wrongfully fired, but we're glad he was fired anyway because we don't like his views"? Very hard to know at this point.) University of Denver students did a nice job covering the case here.