Teenager loses dad his 80 grand settlement by posting on Facebook

[SophieRose]

Here's a lot more information about what happened. School and father first agreed to settlement in Nov 2011, but before it was signed, daughter took to facebook and blasted the message to 1200 followers including many current and former Gulliver students. Father does now have another job at another private school in Florida.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/us/facebook-post-costs-father/

Last week, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida agreed that Snay had, in fact, violated confidentiality and reversed the Circuit Court ruling.

It wrote: "Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do. His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent, advertising to the Gulliver community that Snay had been successful in his age discrimination and retaliation case against the school.

 

[Mystymiss]

I think what some people are not getting is the settlement was not to be made public! Since his daughter announced that settlement on Face Book (which is public), well good bye money! So in others words even if he told his best friend, his mother, his neighbor etc... in private and they in turn splashes that news on FB that would be the same to me, because how would they have gotten that settlement info. Hope his daughter enjoys her vacation where ever it is.....

 

[al66pine]

If the daughter didn't sign the agreement she isn't party to it.
Unless they are suggesting a father can't legally share the settlement info with family ( seems unlikely and ridiculous)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM

Who is they?

Mr Snay and school both had legal counsel and signed the settlement agreement w confidentiality clause, which gives the appearance, imo,
Mr Snay agreed not to share terms except as provided in document.

From http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/us/facebook-post-costs-father/
"The agreement stated that neither Snay nor his wife could speak about the settlement to anyone except for his attorneys and other professional advisers."

I've seen no ref to agreement 'confidential, except for offspring or dau.'
No sarc or snark, if anyone has ^seen ^ pls link.

JM2cts and I could be wrong.

 

[SophieRose]

I wonder if the father now has to pay his attorneys' fees of $60k himself, or does the school still pay them (or if the school paid them does he have to reimburse the school.)

 

[Mystymiss]

Wonder how Snay's daughter found out about the settlement news? I don't believe in ESP.. JMO

 

[al66pine]

I can understand your point if the man or his wife broke the agreement but they didn't the daughter did. If you have twenty people in your family and one of them mentions damages have been paid to you (which is not your fault and entirely out with your control) why should you be held legally and financially liable for that persons actions.

Confused about this comment.

How does "one of them mentions damages have been paid to you" unless you've told that one you received payment?
If if that happens, seems you've violated the confidentiality cluase in the agreement you've signed.

My understanding is that a person who has signed a settlement agreement w a confidentiality clause could say only something to this effect and still be in compliance w agreement:
'This morning I withdrew age discrimination employment lawsuit against XYZ school.'

Maybe something like:
"Yesterday XYZ and I reached an agreement (settlement? terms?) ending my age discrimination employment lawsuit against the schoool and the terms are confidential.'

I too would welcome input from the legal community here.

JM2cts and I could be wrong. :seeya:

 

[al66pine]

Are there any lawyers on web sleuths who can weigh in on this? How can a father who has signed a confidentiality agreement be held liable for his daughter's actions (a daughter who has not signed the document or bound by the terms of it)?

I am sure the man and his wife had no intention of speaking out ever about the settlement and could not have foreseen their daughter speaking about it on Facebook. ...

BBM SBM

Anyone care to ring in on foreseeability question?
Any parents of teenagers w FB acccounts? Grandparents? Relatives?
Legal professionals here?

thx in adv.

 

[SophieRose]

A former coworker filed a lawsuit for sexual harassment and after several years finally settled out of court. She quit several weeks later. Her settlement included a confidentiality agreement about the amount, nothing about not saying she settled or won. In fact she called me a few years ago, talked about old times including the sexual harassment. I felt it was not my business to ask about the settlement so I never brought it up.

I guess the daughter in this case thought it was ok to say her father won if she didn't say the actual amount.

 

[al66pine]

Wonder how Snay's daughter found out about the settlement news? I don't believe in ESP.. JMO

Did you see post (mine, several back)
re Mr. Snay own stmts in ct doc's that he and his wife discussed what to tell the dau and
that there was a ct hearing about whether dau's DB stmt violated the confidentiality cl in agreement?

It's in the cnn link at that post.

 

[zippitydoda]

I can understand your point if the man or his wife broke the agreement but they didn't the daughter did. If you have twenty people in your family and one of them mentions damages have been paid to you (which is not your fault and entirely out with your control) why should you be held legally and financially liable for that persons actions.

I believe the father broke the agreement by telling his daughter.

I'm curious why Mr. Snay felt his daughter just had to know the terms of the settlement? One quote above noted Mr. Snay said he had to tell her something? why? Why not just say it was settled and that's that.

I'm just guessing that Mr. Snay telling his daughter the amount and terms of the settlement and his promise to her of a European vacation came about in the same discussion.

I do feel bad for the daughter - she is a teenager who made a mistake. And now its a huge story. But, her dad made a bigger one - an 80K mistake.

 

[LadyL]

I can understand your point if the man or his wife broke the agreement but they didn't the daughter did. If you have twenty people in your family and one of them mentions damages have been paid to you (which is not your fault and entirely out with your control) why should you be held legally and financially liable for that persons actions.

Are there any lawyers on web sleuths who can weigh in on this? How can a father who has signed a confidentiality agreement be held liable for his daughter's actions (a daughter who has not signed the document or bound by the terms of it)?

I am sure the man and his wife had no intention of speaking out ever about the settlement and could not have foreseen their daughter speaking about it on Facebook. Perhaps the daughter did not know a confidentiality agreement was in place. I hope the court still gives the father his damages and cannot hold him liable for his daughter's foolishness.

[bbm]

in the first article linked in the first post, it states that the parents were not supposed to tell their daughter the results of the case, so yes, they indeed did violate the confidentiality agreement by sharing the news with their daughter, who then moronically blasted it all over FB

 

[FigTree]

The only winners here are the Lawyers.
The school must have been liable to have had to have paid out the money in the first place.
If the non-disclosure was meant to keep the schools reputation in tact and Mr Snays reimbursement and compensation a confidential - these things are now out in the open. Contrary to the confidentiality agreement, Gullivers IMO have also made the mistake of announcing their intention - withdrawing the payment - is their any non-disclosure related to that?

There is one thing here that is interesting - the amount of compensation was not mentioned on the FB post. I wonder what part of the non disclosure agreement is confidential? The amount of payment?

It seems (I dont know this 100% - just an assumption) that the daughters 'psychological scars' were also part of the payment. Her part of the compensation may have been included so as there were not 2 Lawsuits against Gulliver. If that is the case, what was the payment amount included for her suffering?

If also her suffering condition formed part of the payout - why was she not privy to information that related to her? Why could her father not disclose to her? Was the confidentiality agreement signed on her behalf? Was she a minor at the time of the lawsuit?

I could understand if there was a penalty - which may amount to retracting a partial sum to the value of the daughters calculated compensation - but not the entire amount.

I also wondered how old the daughter is?
And, I can understand her having some feelings of saying something after this ended - money doesn't stop the anger - but she should make an apology - to the school and to her family.

I think the father had every right to tell his daughter what was going on if she formed part of the compensation - and she should have been informed of the breadth of what a disclosure encompassed, as well as the consequences of what would happen if she even whispered anything related to the case -

It looks as if her vacation will be cancelled.

Source:
The privacy agreement stated that Snay was not to tell his daughter he had won but he explained to the court that he had felt the need to tell her something because she had suffered from “psychological scars” which came from problems that happened during her enrollment at Gulliver. She had been aware that he was in negotiation with the lawyers from Gulliver but supposedly did not know why.

 

[LadyL]

Maybe if she has to pay her own way to Europe, she'll lose the attitude of entitlement.

 

[Karmady]

I can understand your point if the man or his wife broke the agreement but they didn't the daughter did. If you have twenty people in your family and one of them mentions damages have been paid to you (which is not your fault and entirely out with your control) why should you be held legally and financially liable for that persons actions.

The whole point of a confidentiality agreement is so NO ONE finds out about the settlement. Especially people you can't control.

jmo

 

[al66pine]

When did dau make FB post - before or after agreement was signed by Mr S and school?

Snipped & BBM & SBM from Sophie’s post # 21“Here's a lot more information about what happened. School and father first agreed to settlement in Nov 2011, but before it was signed, daughter took to facebook and blasted the message to 1200 followers including many current and former Gulliver students. Father does now have another job at another private school in Florida.”

From link below, they had already signed, imo.*
Seems like all parties had signed the settlement doc, but school had not yet made payment,
at least not the $80,000 portion representing his damages, imo.
Unclear about whether school had paid agreed on legal fees for Mr S.

Snipped from http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/us/facebook-post-costs-father/ w BBM & SBM
"In November 2011, the school and Snay came to an agreement in which Snay would be paid $10,000 in back pay, and an $80,000 settlement. Gulliver Schools also agreed to cut Snay's attorneys a check for $60,000.
"But before the ink could dry on the deal, Snay's daughter took to Facebook, boasting, "Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT."
"Snay's daughter blasted the message to her 1,200 Facebook followers, which included many current and former Gulliver students. Word of the post spread like wildfire back to school officials."
"Within a few days, Gulliver Schools sent a letter to Snay's attorneys stating that Snay had broken a confidentiality agreement and that he would not be receiving the $80,000 settlement."
BBM

* Poss, reporter used literary license in saying ‘before the ink could dry’ dau made FB post.

JM2cts and I may be wrong.

 

[zippitydoda]

The only winners here are the Lawyers.
The school must have been liable to have had to have paid out the money in the first place.
If the non-disclosure was meant to keep the schools reputation in tact and Mr Snays reimbursement and compensation a confidential - these things are now out in the open. Contrary to the confidentiality agreement, Gullivers IMO have also made the mistake of announcing their intention - withdrawing the payment - is their any non-disclosure related to that?

There is one thing here that is interesting - the amount of compensation was not mentioned on the FB post. I wonder what part of the non disclosure agreement is confidential? The amount of payment?

It seems (I dont know this 100% - just an assumption) that the daughters 'psychological scars' were also part of the payment. Her part of the compensation may have been included so as there were not 2 Lawsuits against Gulliver. If that is the case, what was the payment amount included for her suffering?

If also her suffering condition formed part of the payout - why was she not privy to information that related to her? Why could her father not disclose to her? Was the confidentiality agreement signed on her behalf? Was she a minor at the time of the lawsuit?

I could understand if there was a penalty - which may amount to retracting a partial sum to the value of the daughters calculated compensation - but not the entire amount.

I also wondered how old the daughter is?
And, I can understand her having some feelings of saying something after this ended - money doesn't stop the anger - but she should make an apology - to the school and to her family.

I think the father had every right to tell his daughter what was going on if she formed part of the compensation - and she should have been informed of the breadth of what a disclosure encompassed, as well as the consequences of what would happen if she even whispered anything related to the case -

It looks as if her vacation will be cancelled.

BBM - IMO just because the school agreed to a settlement does not mean they did something wrong - just that they agreed to settle. Sometime parties settle to avoid a costly trial.

I do agree with the lawyer being the biggest winners Mr. Snay was to get 90K (10K + 80K) and the lawyers received 60K...

 

[Karmady]

The only winners here are the Lawyers.
The school must have been liable to have had to have paid out the money in the first place.
If the non-disclosure was meant to keep the schools reputation in tact and Mr Snays reimbursement and compensation a confidential - these things are now out in the open. Contrary to the confidentiality agreement, Gullivers IMO have also made the mistake of announcing their intention - withdrawing the payment - is their any non-disclosure related to that?

There is one thing here that is interesting - the amount of compensation was not mentioned on the FB post. I wonder what part of the non disclosure agreement is confidential? The amount of payment?

It seems (I dont know this 100% - just an assumption) that the daughters 'psychological scars' were also part of the payment. Her part of the compensation may have been included so as there were not 2 Lawsuits against Gulliver. If that is the case, what was the payment amount included for her suffering?

If also her suffering condition formed part of the payout - why was she not privy to information that related to her? Why could her father not disclose to her? Was the confidentiality agreement signed on her behalf? Was she a minor at the time of the lawsuit?

I could understand if there was a penalty - which may amount to retracting a partial sum to the value of the daughters calculated compensation - but not the entire amount.

I also wondered how old the daughter is?
And, I can understand her having some feelings of saying something after this ended - money doesn't stop the anger - but she should make an apology - to the school and to her family.

I think the father had every right to tell his daughter what was going on if she formed part of the compensation - and she should have been informed of the breadth of what a disclosure encompassed, as well as the consequences of what would happen if she even whispered anything related to the case -

It looks as if her vacation will be cancelled.

~bbm

I haven't even finished reading this post, but the bold is so wrong I had to stop and comment. You don't have to be even slightly responsible to settle a case like that. And the school probably didn't pay the settlement at all. Their insurance company would have. And the school would likely have had no say in it at all.

jmo

 

[al66pine]

I'm not seeing that school violated conf cl of the agreement but may be missing something.

Below BBM SBM for focus

....If the non-disclosure was meant to keep the schools reputation in tact and Mr Snays reimbursement and compensation a confidential - these things are now out in the open.Contrary to the confidentiality agreement, Gullivers IMO have also made the mistake of announcing their intention - withdrawing the payment - is their any non-disclosure related to that?

My understanding of seq of events =
-Mr S was headmaster for (unk) sometime.
-MrS filed age discrim employment complaint vs school
-School filed response, blah, blah.
-Judge ordered to mediation.
-Mr S & school reached agreemt for $ to his attys, $$ to him, w conf. cl..
-Agreemt doc, w conf. cl, was signed by them.
-Dau posted on FB re settlment paying for vacay.
--- "Within a few days, Gulliver Schools sent a letter to Snay's attorneys stating that Snay had broken a confidentiality agreement and that he would not be receiving the $80,000 settlement."
from cnn link, nothing about school publicly announcing intention just a letter to MrS (&/or atty)
--- "A hearing was held to determine if his daughter's knowledge of the settlement and her Facebook post had violated the confidentiality agreement." from cnn link
--- "Snay filed a motion to enforce the settlement and won in a Circuit Court ruling. The school appealed." from cnn link
--- "A hearing was held to determine if his daughter's knowledge of the settlement and her Facebook post had violated the confidentiality agreement." from cnn link

"Last week, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida agreed that Snay had, in fact,
violated confidentiality and reversed the Circuit Court ruling.
"It wrote: "Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do. His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent, advertising to the Gulliver community that Snay had been successful in his age discrimination and retaliation case against the school.
"Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the parties' agreement and Snay's testimony confirming his breach of its terms, we reverse the order entered below granting the Snays' motion to enforce the agreement." from cnn link

In cnn link and other MSM I've read, I see nothing about school announcing intent to withdraw paymt or violating conf. cl in agreement.
Maybe others have links tothat info or ct doc's themselves?

JM2cts and I could be wrong.

 

[FigTree]

~bbm

I haven't even finished reading this post, but the bold is so wrong I had to stop and comment. You don't have to be even slightly responsible to settle a case like that. And the school probably didn't pay the settlement at all. Their insurance company would have. And the school would likely have had no say in it at all.

jmo

Thankyou for clarifying that -
I was under the assumption that the back-pay was stipulated. They owed him back-pay of $10,000. I think they were liable for the back-pay? Though I understand the culpability issue - no, they do not have to be responsible.

My point of the post was questioning other elements of the daughters involvement - and the consequences of her actions in relation to the Agreement and if there was an inclusive amount in the payment for her compensation.

:seeya:

 

[al66pine]

Below BBM SBm for focus

....
My point of the post was questioning other elements of the daughters involvement - and the consequences of her actions in relation to the Agreement and if there was an inclusive amount in the payment for her compensation.
:seeya:

cnn link summarizes some of MrS's stmts in ct docs, in the appeals stage, after dau made FB post.

Although he says there was 'retaliation' against her at school and mentions dau's 'psychological scars'
I've seen nothing about dau as a party to the lawsuit which would entitle dau to compensation.

Maybe I've missed it.