Teenager loses dad his 80 grand settlement by posting on Facebook

[TorisMom003]

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.

I'm a mom to two daughters. Both have Facebook accounts. The rule is, don't tell them something you don't want all of their friends to know about. Of course a teenage girl is going to post something like this on her Facebook. For goodness sake, they even post when they go to the mall. The parents, IMO, had to know that she was not going to keep this quiet.

The parents should have honored the agreement and not said anything. If they felt that she deserved to know, then they should have made it clear to her to NOT post anything about it on Facebook or say anything about it to her friends. If she couldn't keep quiet about it, it is the parents fault as much as it is her own. Parents know their kids (or should) and know if they can keep something quiet or not.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Someone upthread asked about dau's age.

From guardian link below, she is now at Boston College in Mass,
so I'm guesstimating ~18 y/o or older now?

per cnn link below, Mr S's ct stmts also say while she was at Gulliver, a private prep school, she faced retaliation,
so I'm ASSuming (we all know what our Moms told us about that)
she was h/s age, 14 -18 y/o, being rataliated against in 2010.
Calculated from that direction, she would be ~18 - 22 y/o now.

Or maybe someone can locate her age elsewere?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Snipped from cnn link
"Patrick Snay, 69 -- the former head of Guillver Preparatory School -- filed an age discrimination complaint
when his 2010-11 contract wasn't renewed.
In November 2011, the school and Snay came to an agreement in which Snay would be paid...." BBM

Per Mar 2 article http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/daughter-facebook-post-costs-dad-80000-in-settlement-payment/ BBM
"The settlement was initially agreed upon in 2011, after Gulliver decided to pay Snay
$10,000 for back salaries, $60,000 to his attorneys and also an $80,000 reimbursement with the condition that
he had to keep the terms and existence of the contract private.
He failed to do that when he told his daughter about the money.
She is now away at university studying at Boston College in Massachusetts.
That is what it has listed on her Facebook at the present time."

JM2cts and I may be wrong.

 

[al66pine]

BBM & SBM for focus:

I'm a mom to two daughters. Both have Facebook accounts. The rule is, don't tell them something you don't want all of their friends to know about. Of course a teenage girl is going to post something like this on her Facebook. For goodness sake, they even post when they go to the mall. The parents, IMO, had to know that she was not going to keep this quiet....MOO

TorisMom003,
Seems like a good rule and thanks for being alert to your teens' SocMedia.

Going O/T
What about acquaintances?
Classmates, friend or not?
Parents? Grandparents?
Teacher? Coaches? Principal?
Neighbors? Minister?
Person interviewing them for a job?
Future children?

In my youngest days, a friend's parents told her not to do anything
(well, except hygiene and as married adult)
she wouldn't want to see printed on the front page of the newspaper.

That was back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. LOL.
But the perceptive dino's could see into in the future - anything on the interwebz stays on the interwebz 4ever.
Even 'private settings' on soc media. No erasing or do-overs.

Pls return to topic.

 

[kline]

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.

Im not a Legal Expert but that is the way Ive always understood it:The AMOUNT is what is confidential.
Ive read about settlements like this in the newspaper and its never a secret that there WAS a settlement.Its the amount that is usually 'Undisclosed'.
These guys were in the wrong now they are compounding it by trying weasel out of the settlement.

 

[jjenny]

Some people here missing that appeals court agreed with the school. So the guy isn't going to get paid, and the school was in the right not to pay him.

"The school never paid the settlement, saying Snay broke his confidentiality agreement, and on Wednesday an appeals court agreed. "Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do," the judge wrote."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/03/01/newser-teen-facebook-post-80k/5923567/

 

[Tawny]

When I sign an NDA (confidentiality) for concept artwork, I can't tell anyone about it. IF I choose to tell, say, DH about it, and DH spills the beans, *I* am the fired one. I'm the one with the lawsuit.

I certainly wouldn't trust information I signed an NDA about to a teenager. Nope.

 

[nrdsb4]

Im not a Legal Expert but that is the way Ive always understood it:The AMOUNT is what is confidential.
Ive read about settlements like this in the newspaper and its never a secret that there WAS a settlement.Its the amount that is usually 'Undisclosed'.
These guys were in the wrong now they are compounding it by trying weasel out of the settlement.

BBM

How do you that the school was in fact in the wrong?

Entities who are actually in no way in the wrong often settle out of court in order to end a suit quickly. The NDA is put in place precisely to avoid the perception that they have admitted wrong doing. It can also benefit the plaintiff if they believe there is a possibility of losing in court and the NDA protects the impression that they were defeated. 90K isn't a whole lot of damage to headmaster for wrongful discrimination, since he lost years of employment with the school by virtue of not being re-hired.

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.

Emphasis is mine.

Because the NDA applies specifically to those twenty family members. He doesn't violate the NDA, he doesn't have to worry about the fact that his family members have loose lips.

I find it interesting that there is the impression that family members would necessarily be entitled to information contained in a NDA. I am a RN. As interesting a story as it might make, I cannot tell my husband about a patient with any kind of detail or I have violated HIPAA. There is absolutely no inherent understanding that I would "naturally" expect to be able to tell my immediate families details about my patients and that if they spill the beans on the internet it's not my fault for not being able to control their actions.

 

[al66pine]

I think this answers questions about what was conf.
It is a direct quote from the agreement Snay & school made,
per today's entry http://www.loweringthebar.net/ :

"13. Confidentiality. . . [T]he plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly, disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this Agreement. . . A breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiff's portion of the settlement Payments [the $80k]."

Not disclose directly or indirectly (except w. atty, prf adv'rs or wife)
Not disclose any info re existence or terms of agreement.
Sets forth the consequence for breach.
Which he did (which his appellate ct-filed docs admit, re telling dau).
Consequence was disgorgment (forced giving up of specified funds).
Appears he breached agreement so quickly, the school had not even paid that part of settlement.

Pretty clear cut to me, if this is the actual language of the settlement agreement.
JM2cts and I may be wrong.

 

[Joe Friday]

I think its good business sense to put confidentiality agreements in place.

Dad made a mistake of trusting his daughter (IMO - with information she did not need or have a right to know) - and the daughter appears to be a typical teenager who was told juicy information and had a Facebook account. Teenager + Secret + Facebook = no longer a secret.

BBM


Teenager + Secret + Facebook = no longer a secret


Funniest thing I have read all day. If there is a bible on FB this should be included.

 

[Karmady]

Im not a Legal Expert but that is the way Ive always understood it:The AMOUNT is what is confidential.
Ive read about settlements like this in the newspaper and its never a secret that there WAS a settlement.Its the amount that is usually 'Undisclosed'.
These guys were in the wrong now they are compounding it by trying weasel out of the settlement.

It depends on the type of settlement. The amount is almost always confidential, but the mere fact of the settlement and its other terms can be made confidential since the parties can pretty much agree to anything they want so long as it's legal. A lot of times the broader confidentiality is done in a case like this one involving allegations of discrimination, harassment, etc. due to the sensitivity of the allegations and to avoid the assumption of liability by people who are aware of the allegations and think the defendant wouldn't have settled otherwise.

jmo

 

[al66pine]

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-1952.rh.pdf
Enlightening.
7 pages, worth reading.

Answers several questions we've been discussing.

 

[Boodles]

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.

They both made big mistakes. He specifically agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential. Why he felt the need to blab to his daughter is mid-boggling. It is exactly what the daughter did next which was intended to be prevented: disclosure to others (which puts the employer in a bad situation in terms of precedents, etc.). But not only did the daughter blab, but she blabbed on FB. This was an agreement, not a court judgment. The father screwed up big time.

They were both stupid, and he clearly breached the terms of the agreement.

BTW: these agreements happen all the time between employers and employees. A $ agreement for not suing is very common. The father took the $ instead of pursuing a court decision. In doing so, he promised to zip it. In reality, people may talk about these agreements, but sparingly and very discretely. No one with a brain would broadcast such a thing publicly. If I have to choose the "most stupid" of the pair, it's the bratty big-mouthed daughter.

 

[Cracka*Jaxx]

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)

Maybe Dana wasn't exactly told about the Settlement. I'm sure it can't be proven that she didn't just overhear a discussion between her parents. But either way, this very stupid young lady doesn't deserve a European vacation or any share in the award at this point in time. What a dumb**s!

 

[al66pine]

Maybe Dana wasn't exactly told about the Settlement. I'm sure it can't be proven that she didn't just overhear a discussion between her parents. But either way, this very stupid young lady doesn't deserve a European vacation or any share in the award at this point in time. What a dumb**s!

BBM

Can't be proven? The app ct opinion shows otherwise.

Snipped from link http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-1952.rh.pdf of app. ct opinion, page 6, footnote 5:
"... According to Snay he knew the litigation was important to his daughter and
he knew he would have to tell her something about its resolution.
So moments after signing the agreement, he had a conversation with his wife, and
they agreed to inform their daughter that the case was settled and they were happy with the result." BBM

On page 7of opinion,
"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..."​

​

​

​

​

​

BBM

Not just my opinion. It's what ct opn stated, Snay admitted the breach in trial ct.​

Cracka I agree totally w your conclusion about teen dau (dumbazz). :seeya:

 

[Tawny]

Why was the litigation important to the daughter?

 

[Cracka*Jaxx]

BBM

Can't be proven? The app ct opinion shows otherwise. ...

Cracka I agree totally w your conclusion about teen dau (dumbazz). :seeya:

Respectfully Snipped

Thanks for this info, al66pine. Guess I didn't see it. (I've actually had pain in my gums ... neck and shoulders, for 4 weeks, now, and have been less than attentive with all kinds of things in my life. )

I must say, it would have been smarter for Dad to just say that a conversation with the Mrs must have been overheard, rather than to actually admit the truth. Although telling the truth is the right, and admirable, thing to do, in these situations it's usually better to make up a better story than the opposition. And I speak from personal experience, where the truth got me very little. Yeah, sadly, that's what our 'judicial' system has deteriorated into.

 

[al66pine]

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.)

SophieRose ^ re your post^
Q1
The App Ct opn* references school's tendering (paymt of Snay's attys fees only) to his attys back in Nov 2011,
but opn does not address it as a contested or appealed issue, so....
I think Snay's attys got paid fees by school, per settlement agreemt.
IMO, based on info below.
JM2cts and I could be wrong.

Q2
Since school paid Snay's attys for legal services to him (assuming it did), would Snay be obligated to reimburse school?
IDK.
Maybe some legal professionals could ring in.

---------------------------------------------------
* Snipping from App Ct opinion = http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-1952.rh.pdf
pages 3-4
"... On November 15, 2011, Gulliver sent a letter to Snay’s counsel, stating that
it was tendering the attorney’s fees portion of the parties’ agreement
but was not going to tender Snay’s portion
because he had breached the confidentiality
provision.3 That letter included a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal which

reconfirmed in part that “the parties have settled this action,”
and Snay signed off on it and returned it to Gulliver.
The action was dismissed with a reservation of
jurisdiction for enforcement of the settlement agreement.​

On June 9, 2012, Snay filed his motion to enforce the settlement agreement...."

 

[al66pine]

Respectfully Snipped

Thanks for this info, al66pine. Guess I didn't see it. (I've actually had pain in my gums ... neck and shoulders, for 4 weeks, now, and have been less than attentive with all kinds of things in my life. )
....

SBM

Sorry that you are under the weather, Cracka.
Wishing you a speedy recovery. :seeya:

 

[al66pine]

Why was the litigation important to the daughter?

Mr S stated that it was in ct.*
I wonder if his stmts were a red herring to try to justify his breach of confidentiality clauseof settlement agreement.
A possibility.
Maybe referencing 'retaliation' against her, implying school did nothing,
to throw more mud at the school?
A possibility.
Part of settlement $ would benefit dau directly or indirectly?

Not saying that was his intent, just possibilities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-1952.rh.pdf
* per App Ct opn, pages 6-7, quoting his testimony at trial ct level:
"....According to Snay he knew the litigation was important to his daughter and
he knew he would have to tell her something about its resolution.
So moments after signing the agreement, he had a conversation with his wife, and
they agreed to inform their daughter that the case was settled and they were happy with the result.

Snay explained:
'What happened is that after settlement my wife and I went in the
parking lot, and
we had to make some decisions on what we were going to tell my daughter.
Because it’s very important to understand that she was an intricate part of what was happening.
She was retaliated against at Gulliver.
So she knew we were going to some sort of mediation.
She was very concerned about it.
Because of what happened at Gulliver, she had quite a few psychological scars which forced me to put her into therapy.
So there was a period of time that there was an unresolved
enclosure for my wife and me.
It was very important with her.
We understood the confidentiality. So we knew what the restrictions​

were, yet we needed to tell her something." BBM
I've seen nothing about dau as a party to the lawsuit which would entitle dau to compensation or about dau as witness.
Maybe I've missed it.

 

[Snoods]

If I’m interpreting correctly, it seems some folks here think -
after voluntarily signing to withdraw lawsuit in exchange for payment to compensate him
(for alleged monetary injuries resulting from school’s alleged age-discrimination against him)
and agreeing that neither he nor his wife would communicate re agreement and terms,
then approx. a few days later, violating that agreement,
he should not be subject to consequences of his violation of agreement?

IOW, use the courts to sue a person, with attorneys representing your interests,
prior to trial, reach a settlement w other party(ies), sign an agreement w other party(ies),
promise non-disclosure,
violate agreement by disclosing to someone,
then insist on getting the money anyway?

What if instead of a confidentiality clause violation, it had been a payment violation.
What if the same agreement had been reached and all parties signed the document,
then the school paid only one quarter of agreed on $$$ to employee, per written document?
Should the employee just say, oh well, I'm okay w less than promised.
Should a court not be able to force the school to comply w terms agreed to, and to pay the other three quarters, the balance?

Can you imagine living in a judicial system that allows a person to do this?

Disclosure or non-disclosure clauses in legal settlement agreements are negotiated, in virtually every case (AFAIK).

So if school thought it was just fine for Mr. & Mrs. Snay to disclose agreement and terms,
that confidentiality clause would not have been in the document
they all signed to confirm agreement.
Or if Mr Snay had insisted on non-confidentiality, a non-confidentiality clause would have been in that document,
w all parties signing.

JM2cts and I may be wrong. :seeya:

You should be a lawyer, I was all on the family's side and now I'm up in arms AGAINST the family! I know there are some states in which parents are legally responsible for anything their children do, but some states don't have that law. I wonder if something like that will play into what's going on here?