back to article How a Facebook post by blabbermouth daughter cost her parents $80,000

A Florida dad is $80,000 poorer after his daughter went on Facebook to brag about a court settlement he received – and lost him the lot. Patrick Snay is the former headmaster of Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami, and in 2011 he launched legal action against his old employers after his contract was not renewed. Snay claimed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Winkypop Silver badge
    FAIL

    Ouch!

    That's gotta hurt.

    No Gulliver travels for the Snays.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Icsnay!

    ICSNAY!!!!

  3. ShelLuser
    Stop

    Something doesn't add up here...

    "However, as part of a subsequent $80k out-of-court settlement deal with the school, Snay had to sign a confidentiality agreement promising he would not disclose the terms of the compensation package."

    It looks to me as if the daughter never disclosed those terms but only revealed the fact that a settlement was reached which by itself is normally hardly confidential. So either the article got it wrong and this dealt with more than merely the terms of the agreement or something doesn't add up here.

    1. Tom Samplonius

      Re: Something doesn't add up here...

      "It looks to me as if the daughter never disclosed those terms but only revealed the fact that a settlement was reached which by itself is normally hardly confidential."

      The post reveals that money was paid. A settlement does not mean that any money changed hands. Settlements often involve no money at all, and are just ways to exit a civil suit with a no possible return on investment.

      Yes, in the US a civil suit can be considered an asset. You can even borrow money against a civil suit in order to keep the case going. That is of course, if you can convince a bank you are going to win.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Something doesn't add up here...

        As has been observed, the fact a settlement and a favourable one had been reached would be difficult to hide and easy to deduce, particularly by a family member or close friend or neighbour.

        I suspect having read the court ruling, there was an element of naïvety on the part of the family and their legal team - they overlooked the need to have a story to tell the daughter (and others) why daddy was no longer going to court etc. and an element of opportunism by Gulliver's lawyer (who would of drafted the original clause) who was probably aware of the dilemma the family would face and hence why he was monitoring the daughter's Facebook posts...

        I'd therefore suggest the family ask their lawyer for a rebate...

        1. Scott 53

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          Gulliver's lawyer (who would of drafted the original clause)

          I really hope the lawyer drafts better than you do

    2. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Something doesn't add up here...

      @Shell

      The "terms"; ie "the agreement between the two parties", was that he recieves 80K for not disclosing the deal to anyone...... That means "no-one".

      He could easilly have explained to his wife that he won the courst case and also say, to his wife, familly, that he can't can't discuss the details.. I cant see the importance of telling anyone the nitty-gritty and certainely not the daughter.

      Personally, I have no sympathy for the guy, he should imply have swallowed his pride, kept his mouth shut and enjoyed the 80k..... Instead he wanted to show off and he paid the price, what an arse...

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Something doesn't add up here...

        "I cant see the importance of telling anyone the nitty-gritty and certainely not the daughter....kept his mouth shut and enjoyed the 80k"

        A decent lawyer should have got that "breach of terms" claim thrown out easily. Giving the guy an $80k settlement on the grounds he tell *no one* is impractical at best and would have required the entire immediate family sign the non-disclosure at worst.

        How the hell was the guy supposed to tell his wife the case was over and then not explain where the $80k came from in the (probably joint) bank account? Based on the evidence supplied in the article, he may not have told his daughter how much he got, just that it was enough for a damn good holiday.

        1. Number6

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          A decent lawyer should have got that "breach of terms" claim thrown out easily. Giving the guy an $80k settlement on the grounds he tell *no one* is impractical at best and would have required the entire immediate family sign the non-disclosure at worst.

          The IRS would have to sign too, they tend to want to know about large sums of money because they want their share of it.

        2. IsJustabloke Silver badge
          Megaphone

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          I would suggest there is a world of difference between telling your immediate family and making an announcement to all and sundry on Facebook which is surely akin to taking out a full page advert in a national advert.

          1. Gav

            Re: Something doesn't add up here...

            Yup. The point here is that he would probably have been fine if he'd told his daughter, and told her to keep her mouth shut. He also didn't need to tell his daughter any actual figures or details.

            But he didn't. He told her, and most importantly forgot to impress on her about it being a secret. And she then went and broadcast it to many of the people the school explicitly did not want to know (other pupils, parents, teachers).

            It sucks, but totally his fault. Should have been more careful.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Something doesn't add up here...

        I cant see the importance of telling anyone the nitty-gritty and certainely not the daughter.

        Really? You are supporting courts having the rights to dictate that married individuals must keep secrets from their spouses? From their direct family?

        At what point did America get taken over by people who think the state can do whatever the hell it likes to whoever the hell it likes, and make it legally enforceable. At what point did the state get the right to dictate the shape of someones marital relationship.

        I really don't understand how your judicial system can have gone so wrong. You have courts which can remove the right to freedom of speech, and the right to a private life. You have law enforcement agencies which can actively instuct officers of other law enforcement agancies to break your own laws. You have laws which allow the words of your police officers to become legally binding orders which citizens must obey under threat of physical force, and imprisonment. Where the fuck is the land of the free?

        1. Khaptain Silver badge

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          "Really? You are supporting courts having the rights to dictate that married individuals must keep secrets from their spouses? From their direct family?"

          I really dont understand what "contract" or agreement means then. This guy accepted the agreement, he was not forced or coerced and the agreement stated that he "must" keep the details quiet.

          I do not see how any of his indivudual rights have been abused, he accepted the agreement, he should have kept his side of the bargain otherwise he should not accepted the deal.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Something doesn't add up here...

            "I really dont understand what "contract" or agreement means then."

            For a "contract" to be valid, it must be fair to both sides, offer both sides some approximately equal benefit. Contracts are often overturned or thrown out when one side or the other realises they've been screwed over after the fact by an "unfair" contract.

            Yes, some will say, "tough, you should have read it", but not everyone is an expert and we all know how weasely most T&Cs are that we all click through on installing software. For that matter, it's not hard to find a contract with terms in which actually preclude each other so it's impossible not to break one term by trying to keep within the scope of the other.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Something doesn't add up here...

              > For a "contract" to be valid, it must be fair to both sides, offer both sides some approximately equal benefit.

              It did. In return for their silence the school offered them $80,000. The former headmaster considered it fair and the school considered it fair. The former headmaster then proceeded to break the terms of the contract.

              > Yes, some will say, "tough, you should have read it", but not everyone is an expert and we all know how weasely most T&Cs are

              This wasn't a "click here if you agree" type thing. It was a contract negotiated by their lawyers. They would not have been presented with the contract and told to sign here. Their lawyer will have explained exactly what they could and couldn’t do and what the implications were. They did not need to be expert in legalise, just expert in the plain English the lawyer explained the terms to them in.

              1. Sloppy Crapmonster
                Alert

                Re: Something doesn't add up here...

                This wasn't a "click here if you agree" type thing.

                At least according to the letter of the law here in the USA, "click here if you agree" is as legally binding as any paper document you sign with a pen. See the E-SIGN act of 2000, signed into law by the same president who would challenge you to define the word "is".

                1. Grease Monkey

                  Re: Something doesn't add up here...

                  The guy did not have to accept the out of court settlement, but he did and one of the terms of that agreement was that he told nobody. He breached those terms, his daughter told 1200 people and many more indirectly.

                  If he didn't like the terms he shouldn't have signe and instead continued his action. Simple really.

                  Of course now that the settlement no longer stands I would have thought he could renew the action. After all I don't suppose the settlement would be allowed to prejudice the case either way.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Something doesn't add up here...

                    > Of course now that the settlement no longer stands I would have thought he could renew the action.

                    Nope he couldn't because the settlement is still in force.

                    The settlement was in 3 parts: 10k back pay, 80k to keep his gob shut and 60k for his lawyers. He got the10k back pay and the lawyers were paid. He never got the 80k because he didn't keep quiet.

                    He had an opportunity, after his daughter blabbed, to vacate the settlement and renegotiate but he declined. As a result, the agreement to settle stands, even though he is no longer entitled to the 80k.

                  2. Vociferous

                    Re: Something doesn't add up here...

                    The story here isn't "dumb kid blabs on facebook", it's "scumbag school stiffs loyal employee twice". But that just isn't newsworthy in this day and age. Especially not when the school preemptively sends out press kits about how dumb the kid is.

          2. Jemma Silver badge

            Re: Something doesn't add up here...

            Last I looked in the article it was the father who signed the NDA - not the daughter so explain to me like I'm 5 how the hell HER actions constitute HIM breaking the NDA. God but God screwed the hell up when he created Americans..

            1. Jonathan Richards 1
              Thumb Up

              The story so far

              > explain to me like I'm 5 how the hell HER actions constitute HIM breaking the NDA

              Daddy Snay got some some money from the Bad School. And he promised not to tell anyone except Mummy Snay, and the Nice Lawyers. But Daddy Snay and Mummy Snay told Baby Snay, even though they had promised not to. That was silly, wasn't it? And then Baby Snay went onto Facebook, which was silly, and told EVERYONE, which was even sillier. What do you think of that? Of course, then the Bad School knew that Daddy Snay must have broken his promise, so the Big Court said it was OK for the school not to give EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS to Daddy Snay after all.

              And Daddy and Mummy Snay were sad, but not as sad as Baby Snay, who didn't get her European holiday after all.

              Hardly anyone lived happily ever after.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          >You are supporting courts having the rights to dictate that married individuals must keep secrets from their spouses? From their direct family?

          If you read the court record, the wife was also a signatory (obviously because she would have a vested interest in a settlement due to marriage). However, it wasn't until after they signed that it occurred to them that they needed a story for their daughter and others, which the agreement they had just signed effectively prohibited.

          But yes the courts do have the rights to enforce contracts between willing parties, if you've ever had to: be a member of a jury, sign the Official Secrets Act then you will know that there are things that you can't talk to your family and friends about.

        3. Number6

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          I really don't understand how your judicial system can have gone so wrong. You have courts which can remove the right to freedom of speech, and the right to a private life. You have law enforcement agencies which can actively instruct officers of other law enforcement agencies to break your own laws. You have laws which allow the words of your police officers to become legally binding orders which citizens must obey under threat of physical force, and imprisonment. Where the fuck is the land of the free?

          Sadly the UK is not much better. If you're in a public place the police can order you to obey them under threat of arrest. If social services decide they don't like you then your right to privacy is very limited, and then you're banned from talking about issues.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Something doesn't add up here...

            Sadly the UK is not much better. If you're in a public place the police can order you to obey them under threat of arrest. If social services decide they don't like you then your right to privacy is very limited, and then you're banned from talking about issues.

            With a heavy heart I recognise and accept we're really not any better over here.

        4. Ross K Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          Really? You are supporting courts having the rights to dictate that married individuals must keep secrets from their spouses? From their direct family?

          This case revolved around an OUT OF COURT settlement.

          The court in this case wasn't dictating anything - it was enforcing a term of a contract which had been agreed by BOTH PARTIES.

        5. Gordon Pryra

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          "At what point did America get taken over by people who think the state can do whatever the hell it likes to whoever the hell it likes, and make it legally enforceable."

          Are you not exactly describing America there? Actually any of the Western Governements.

        6. Fatman Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: ...and make it legally enforceable.

          At what point did America get taken over by people who think the state can do whatever the hell it likes to whoever the hell it likes, and make it legally enforceable.

          In the aftermath of 8/11.

      3. JeeBee

        Re: Something doesn't add up here...

        "The "terms"; ie "the agreement between the two parties", was that he recieves 80K for not disclosing the deal to anyone...... That means "no-one"."

        I am almost 100% certain that it doesn't mean immediate family, that would be an unreasonable restriction.

        Also, is his daughter old enough to be a party to such an agreement? I doubt it.

        I think this man's lawyers have let him down. But not as much as his daughter, who has learned that you don't just gob your mouth off about everything that happens in your family to everyone on a public forum.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          Here is the confidentiality clause:

          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 Plaintiffs portion of the settlement Payments.

          Here is what the Judge said:

          The fact that Snay testified that he knew he needed to tell his daughter something did not excuse this breach. There is no evidence that he made this need known to the school or to his or its attorneys so that the parties might hammer out a mutually acceptable course of action in the agreement. Rather, before the ink was dry on the agreement, and notwithstanding the clear language of section 13 mandating confidentiality, Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do.

          One of the reasons that Judge found in favour of the school was because the language of clause 13 was clear and unambiguous. Snay also testified that he knew he could not tell his daughter. If Snay thought that the restriction was unreasonable then he should have negotiated a different deal.

        2. ibagoalie

          Re: Something doesn't add up here...

          I believe the settlement said "Spouse". As for the child (I have heard she is in College, but can't confirm), why do you have to explain anything? Put the money in the bank and carry on. Do you tell your children how much you make? My parents certainly didn't. If I asked I was told "none of my business". Even if he was allowed to tell her, she wasn't 'allowed' to tell the world. Plus I think her 'suck it' comment added gasoline to the fire. I have zippo sympathy.

      4. Stevie Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Something doesn't add up here...

        "Personally, I have no sympathy for the guy, he should imply have swallowed his pride, kept his mouth shut and enjoyed the 80k..... Instead he wanted to show off and he paid the price, what an arse..."

        Because he obviously *was* bragging and hadn't, for example, simply been overheard talking to his wife during the stressful process, and because you personally know the man and know him for a Tw*t.

        Sorry Khaptain, you get the fail. You could have just sniggered along with everyone else but no, you had to brag about *why* and now you've lost the moral high ground and everyone wants their upvotes back. I've no sympathy for you.

    3. Charles Manning

      Re: Something doesn't add up here...

      The critical bit is "out-of-court".

      If it had been an in-court settlement, then the terms would have been public record.

      With an out of court settlement, all we know is the action stopped. We don't know if that was because they paid him or he had a change of heart.

  4. xperroni

    Not sure what to think

    I wonder if her father made it clear that they couldn't tell others about the settlement? An adult could be expected to know babbling about it would be a bad idea regardless, but teenagers are known to brag. Of course the smarter children figure early the virtue of keeping them traps shut, but not everyone can be "smarter", right? In fact I'd dare say most people have ran their mouths off at least once, and only then learned the value of thinking before spouting their hearts out. Usually though, that won't sting to the tune of 80 grand.

    Also, that Facebook was the vehicle of their ruin also gets me thinking. Ten years ago the girl would have to be somewhat tech-savvy to reach beyond her real-world friends, but now, with smartphones and social networks, anyone can let the world know how immature they are at a moment's notice. It's a bit like what gun ban proponents say, if it's so easy you can do it without thinking, someone's bound to do something they'll come to regret.

    1. Tank boy
      Pint

      Re: Not sure what to think

      "I wonder if her father made it clear that they couldn't tell others about the settlement?"

      Of course not, it's Florida. It really should be it's own country, because they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer down there.

      1. MrT

        Re: Sharpest knives...

        ...blunted by most of them having retired there from New Everything (York, Joisee, etc.) to end up driving around Jacksonville with their left-turn signal on all day... like my aunt and uncle, who did the east coast shuffle from Portchester

        Now which chad do I punch out to make this post anonymous, so none of my friends and family in Tampa and Panama City know it's me? Okay, found it - I'm sure that's the right one...

        1. 404 Silver badge

          Re: Sharpest knives...

          s'ok.. Mamma Earth is slowly taking care of the issue-> sinkholes for the worst offenders.

          Got a friend in Tampa. trains military/police dogs... the bitey kind lol. Wait, what are we talking about? Got a CSS problem for a website due out today...and mind is jello atm. I need a beer already.

          sigh...

          Oh yeah ... lawyers suck... pretty much covers subject.

    2. Annihilator
      Meh

      Re: Not sure what to think

      "I wonder if her father made it clear that they couldn't tell others about the settlement?"

      Doesn't matter in this instance. The settlement made clear *he* couldn't tell anyone the terms, including his daughter. Her post was apparently evidence that he had blabbed about it.

      Nuts to think you can't tell your own family, but equally nuts that you can't show the outside world the cost of treating employees unfairly - settlements like these should be printed in full-page ads to deter companies from being dicks, and act as an advert to employees who don't realise they're being mistreated in a legal sense

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Not sure what to think

        you can't show the outside world the cost of treating employees unfairly

        Unfortunately, NOTHING says that anyone was being treated unfairly in the first place.

        We just know the school weighted the odds and thought that defending the case would cost probably more than 80K.

        These 80K are coming from where and and who would not be getting adequate educaschion because of this, btw?

    3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Not sure what to think

      "I wonder if her father made it clear that they couldn't tell others about the settlement?"

      Typical "computer geek who knows zero about the law" statement.

      The father violated the agreement the second he told his family. The daughter's post on Facebook simply provided irrefutable proof of his violation. The settlement's confidentiality requirement is no different than your employer's confidentiality requirement or a defense department confidentiality requirement. Disclosing to your family, even your spouse, is a violation.

      1. skeptical i

        disclosure to spouse, yes or no?

        While "don't tell ANYONE" is pretty cut- and- dried, in many instances spouses are exceptions to that rule and/ or get special treatment legally. I'm thinking specifically about tax returns: if Mr and Mrs Almost-Plaintiff file as "married filing jointly", surely there is a likelihood that the other spouse is going to double-check the math and say "Uh, hon? Whatsis $80K under 'miscellaneous income'?" How would one honor the "don't tell" settlement terms while keeping on the correct side of the 'Murkin IRS? (Besides just quietly socking the money away into an investment account and paying someone else to do the taxes, that is.)

      2. xperroni
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Not sure what to think

        Typical "computer geek who knows zero about the law" statement.

        Indeed I am a computer geek who knows zero about the law. I do, however, know a thing or two about objective reality. For example, if a man breaks a non-disclosure agreement by telling it to his daughter, but she doesn't tell anyone, then it's not like lawyers can use their magical powers to find this out; without evidence they'd have no basis to go back on the settlement.

        So "I wonder if her father made it clear that they couldn't tell others about the settlement?" is very well a relevant question. No bragging, no Facebook posts, no evidence, no problem.

        Now a question for you: if a man breaks his non-disclosure agreement in the forest where no-one can hear him, do law geeks still get to enjoy the sound of their own keyboards as they brag about how knowledgeable they are?

      3. DN4

        Re: Not sure what to think

        > The father violated the agreement the second he told his family.

        Close relatives can, in general, figure out that the case ended and the person in question received lots of $$$ without being explicitly told. So do you suggest that everyone involved in such agreement has to divorce his wife/her husband, leave his/her family and become a hermit?

        I don't say that the agreement was not legally binding, I just say that there is no sane way to actually honour it.

        1. Khaptain Silver badge

          Re: Not sure what to think

          All it would have required was to sit down with his familly, in private, explain the situation and inform them that because of the agreement they cannot speak or disclose details of the deal.. Everyone behaves like an adult, they have 80K in the bank and everything is hunky dory....

          Unfortunately he had a daughter that doesn't know what "discreet" means.

          These kind of deals happen every day without us knowing about them because both parties know what it means to honour the contract and remain schtoum.....

    4. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Not sure what to think

      El Reg didn't mention it, but the link to the court report says the daughter was "college-aged". I think we're talking about someone who ought to have known better. Had the daughter been much younger, it is possible that the decision might have gone the other way.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, this really seems odd - what's the guy supposed to do, not tell even his family why there's another 80 grand in the bank? And it seems absurd to say, "OK, here's your settlement, but if at some point in the future your child says you got any money, you'll have to give it all back. So you better make sure your kid is mature and understands the consequences of her actions completely! Haha!"

    As ShelLuser pointed out, 'terms' doesn't usually mean the fact that a settlement was reached; how can you be expected to keep that confidential? Seems like your family might notice that you're not going to court anymore... something is really off about this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Always keep your financial situatoin away from your kids!

      If they ask where the money came from suggest darkly that it was a shady deal and that, if they reveal it to anyone, hardened Mafiosi will wipe out the family and everyone they reveal it to.

      Anonymous - If I were to reveal my ID I would have to kill you ALL!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yep, I'm pretty sure that any wife would want to know where $80K has suddenly appeared from.

      And the IRS, of course.

      1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
        Boffin

        IRS

        Whether a settlement is taxable depends on the details. Which is why if you are ever suing (in the US) for a significant amount of money, it's a good idea to talk to a tax attorney before settling or before the court awards you anything. Even if the settlement or award is taxable, there can sometimes be ways to structure it to lower the taxes. For example, if the award or settlement covers your legal fees, often that can be structured so that you do not have to pay taxes on the money going to your legal team. But it has to be structured properly BEFORE the award or settlement is made. You can't play around with the paperwork after the check(s) is cut.

    3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      what's the guy supposed to do, not tell even his family why there's another 80 grand in the bank?

      SUCK IT!

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. Mark 85 Silver badge

    From the article I saw

    She blew it.

    http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/-80-000-facebook-dana-snay-settlement-confidentiality-agreement-164326139.html

    Relevant part:

    However, the odds of Snay's winning his money back are slim, according to attorney Bradley Shear. “It depends on the terms of the confidentiality contract; each one is different, but the damage is likely done,” Shear tells Yahoo Shine. “Some confidentiality agreements stipulate that the client cannot tell people who are not involved in the case: others prohibit anyone from knowing. Facebook is a public forum, even if her profile is set to private, and that’s where the mistake was made.”

    Had Snay’s daughter been discreet, the court would not have discovered the family had violated Snay's contract. “The bottom line is, when involved in legal proceedings, don’t disclose anything on social media,” says Shear. “It’s not worth it.”

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: From the article I saw

      " “The bottom line is, when involved in legal proceedings, don’t disclose anything on social media,” says Shear. “It’s not worth it.” "

      “The bottom line is, don’t disclose anything on social media,” says Shear. “It’s not worth it.” fixed that for him - bill will be $6000 - $1000 per word +$1000 for the comma

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My guess is that Dana is currently blaming everyone but herself and hasn't learned anything from the whole situation - "OMG it's like, so, like, unfair...".

    My second guess is that Patrick Snay has finally realised that you can put a dollar value on a human life. If I was him, I'd be adjusting my will right now - crass stupidity shouldn't be rewarded.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Have you been injured at work?" "By your daughter?"

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'd agree with "crass stupidity shouldn't be rewarded.", but I'm afraid I once met an excessively well-rewarded elected politician .... not only that, he was a member of the legal "profession" as well ....

    3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Playing the blame game

      My guess is that Dana is currently blaming everyone but herself

      If her father had not breached the agreement and told her then she could not have blabbed on Facebook. It is his problem as much as it would be if he had lent her his credit card and she had run up massive debts.

      If he had told her not to do what she did then there is a failing which rests with her, but he still has to man-up as having facilitated that in the first place.

      I imagine this is the conclusion the court came to in revoking the award having heard all the arguments that it was not his fault.

      1. JeeBee

        Re: Playing the blame game

        Oh quit it with this line of argument. They're in there so that the signatories to the agreement don't tell the media or publicise the results of the agreement widely, they don't stop reasonable disclosure within immediate family, etc.

        The father had a perfectly reasonable expectation that family financial matters would be kept within the family, and that his daughter wouldn't gob it all over the world. Even so, he should have reminded her when he told her, that she couldn't give details. He probably did, but she wanted to brag about her "win by family circumstance". Lesson for parents - don't tell immature offspring anything when there's a lot at stake.

        In the end, that $80k was probably just about reasonable recompense for the stress the whole situation (firing, court case, etc) put him through, and she has lost him that with her large gob. What could have been a decent college fund (or parent-funded downpayment on her first house) for her is no longer, so she'll now be racking up the student loans, so hopefully she will learn something from this.

    4. Amorous Cowherder

      Believe it of not when you have kids they can do the most fecking stupid things imaginable, you want scream at the little sods for making your life hell at times but you never stop loving them and when push comes to shove you would jump first if it meant saving them.

      So grow up, this is an adult forum.

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Bah!

        Upvoted so you know you aren't the only non-DINK, non-SINK in the forum.

  9. Tank boy
    Facepalm

    Make me read a little bit will you

    You had me at Florida. Can we please force it on Spain? I'll even go back in the Army if we have to fight to force them to take it back.

    1. Mephistro Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Make me read a little bit will you

      We don't want it, thank you but no, thank you. But don't despair, the Andorran hegemonistic expansion plans are in need of a boost and they'll probably accept any land you offer them. Also, they're far easier to invade if/when they finally decide they don't want it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Make me read a little bit will you

      How about giving it to Cuba? They are much closer and in the process reunite many families.

      1. Havin_it

        Re: Make me read a little bit will you

        I can see it now:

        "Welcome home, brothers and sisters. Now I know you have been saying some pretty hurtful things, but let us put that behind us, shall we?"

  10. BongoJoe

    I am waitng for the sueball to be lobbed at Facebork.

  11. Vociferous

    The real problem isn't that she revealed they'd got money.

    The real problem is that in the US, companies can issue gag orders like this to hush scandals down.

    It is pretty fucking scummy, IMO.

    1. TitterYeNot

      Re: The real problem isn't that she revealed they'd got money.

      "It is pretty fucking scummy, IMO."

      I quite agree. Though I'm sure there are cases where a legal gag is fitting, I can't see how it's right to be applied here.

      The school presumably know they were being ageist, hence the payout (I'm sure if they were paying out just to avoid lawyers fees and to make him go away the payout would have been considerably less.)

      It's like they're saying "Yeah OK we treated you scummily because of your age, and because it's illegal we'll give you some compensation. But you can't tell anyone about it, because we want to keep the fact that we're poor employers, and that we know we're poor employers, a secret."

      Rather than doing the right thing and improving the way they treat their employees.

      Maybe this is fallout from the American suing culture. If the law wasn't such an ass he'd be able to take them back to court to have such a gagging order ruled illegal and have his settlement reinstated. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen though - blue doesn't suit me...

    2. NullReference Exception

      Re: The real problem isn't that she revealed they'd got money.

      Except that the gag "order" in this case was voluntarily agreed to by the father as part of the settlement. Had he chosen to go to trial, he'd be free to talk about the case as much as he wanted. (But he might not have gotten his $80K.)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The real problem isn't that she revealed they'd got money.

      But what's humourous here is that if the school was trying to avoid a scandal, as a result of the press, a whole lot more folks know about it. Why, I'm tempted to send the school an email lauding them on not hiring any old farts...

    4. Trainee grumpy old ****

      Re: The real problem isn't that she revealed they'd got money.

      > The real problem is that in the US, companies can issue gag orders like this to hush scandals down.

      And here I thought the left-pondians were critical of UK judicial proceedings and super injunctions. Imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A stupid brat like that wouldn't appreciate a good holiday anyway

    I can't imagine she cares about anything other than Facebook, showing off to her "friends", and being judged by anonymous people on random message boards.

  13. Mrg9999

    If the daughter was below the age of legal responsibility, I bet this could be contested, but this is America, and we all know about their damm fool laws, like let everyone have guns.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      But he breached the terms of the settlement by telling her. Her age is irrelevant in this matter.

  14. John H Woods Silver badge

    You are currently the high bidder on ...

    ... 1x indiscrete immature daughter. Item location Florida. Buyer collects, preferably using unmarked van with blacked out windows. Your current bid is $75,000. The reserve has not yet been met.

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      oops

      oops, indiscrEET. Apologies, missed edit window.

  15. theloon

    hahaha

    Priceless and good.. Don't sign a confidentiality agreement and tell anyone what was in it.

  16. John Savard Silver badge

    Well, then the legal action should simply be restarted, since presumably the school is still guilty of ageism. This time, though, it would have to go through to the end, with an in-court award.

    An out-of-court settlement is a contract, so we can't fault the courts for enforcing contracts, but it shouldn't be a way for miscreants to escape justice.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The legal action cannot be restarted. Part of the settlement is that the plaintiff has filed paperwork asking for the case to be dismissed with prejudice. That means that it cannot be refiled. You cannot start a new case as the court has technically already ruled against you in that you asked for it to be dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, part of the settlement also stipulates that you cannot refile and by accepting the terms of the settlement the issue has been resolved. The school followed their part of the settlement (agreement) and the plaintiff did not and lost the award in the process.

      I have firsthand experience with an out-of-court settlement. The terms of the agreement stated I cannot talk about it and that all claims have been dismissed. So even filing another lawsuit would violate the terms of the settlement and thus I would be in breach of contract. I bet the settlement he had with the school stated something similar. Any further legal action he would take against the school would be in breach of that contract (which the school never breached only him) and they could recoup any legal fees from him for any legal action he brings against them.

      If she is of legal age and wants to tour Europe, she is going to have to SUCK IT!!!!

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does that mean...

    ... he can re-open proceedings for the full original amount? If the settlement is void, then presumably it means the original court case can continue.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does that mean...

      No because the settlement said that the agreement resolves all claims each party has against the other and that the plaintiff must ask the court to dismiss the case with prejudice. The original court case is closed; permanently and he cannot refile as the settlement bars him. The school followed through with the part of the settlement. He then breached the settlement and thus the school was able to request the court that they (the school) does not have to fulfill their end of the payment since he breached the settlement agreement. The settlement is still in play just not the entire settlement and the court cannot hear the case as it has been dismissed with prejudice. To go even further, the statue of limitations in Florida is two years. With the previous case been going on for over two years before the settlement was reached, the statue of limitations has now expired on any claims he has as well.

  18. NotWorkAdmin

    Shhhhh

    My wife received a reprimand from her manager for gossiping. She immediately told a fellow employee, who (of course) went back to the manager and asked "what's this about you telling X to stop gossiping?". Fury ensued.

    She quite often asks me why I don't tell her everything. My son on the other hand has no problem maintaining a confidence. My daughters blab about everything. Read from it what you will.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shhhhh

      That the time your spend with your children is skewed towards your son?

  19. bigtimehustler

    Indeed, the issue here is little about what his daughter said and more proof that he must have told her. When you sign an agreement that says you can not tell anyone, that means you can't tell you wife, your children or anyone! If you are not happy with that, don't sign that agreement.

    1. Michael Thibault

      >Indeed, the issue here is

      Really, the deep-down issue here is that it's possible -- and, apparently, not gob-smacking -- to extend the idea of non-disclosure to out-of-court settlements that are, effectively, contracts. If the behaviour that sparked the suit was public (in the broad sense), the aggrieved party should insist -- to the last -- that the outcome, for the offending party, also be public. That's fair. Eminently fair. And sensible. Why in the name of frickin' creation would you put someone else's handcuffs on your own wrists? For justice? WTF?!

      As for the whelp... a T-shirt: "Dad won a lawsuit, and all I got out of it was this T-shirt and a big wad of STFU".

  20. Spook

    1,200 facebook friends? Who is she, the Queen of fucking England?

    1. NotWorkAdmin

      Exactly

      My boss bragged one day he'd got to 800 friends on FB. My response was "Wow really? What are their names?". I closed my FB that very day (in as far as that's even possible) and haven't looked back.

  21. Kaorukun

    Another reason to never allow your children to access the "social media"

  22. mIRCat
    Paris Hilton

    But how do we get her out of Florida?

    "Gulliver's lawyer probably popped a bottle of champagne on seeing the post, and promptly went to court to block the $80,000 (£48,000) settlement. Now, after two years of legal wrangling, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal has found in favor of the school and young Dana won't be getting to swan around London, Paris, and Rome on the prep school's check book as planned."

    And Europe is all the richer for it.

    Paris 'cause... well the obvious.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But seriously what is facebook?

    Facebook is actually "gossip and bragbook" so it might be easier to think about what you are posting, if it was honestly named.

    Still, at least she has something to write, "Even those techi brit guys are talking about me!"

    "Suck it!! sounds great in the British accent"

    The fault is more her dad's, I hope she sees it as life lesson rather than a cue for all us "never set a foot wrong" trolls to gloat.

  24. steogede

    Isn't it hearsay?

    The father could have argued that he didn't tell her - she knew that he was suing them (that much is public record) and that they were now going on an expensive holiday. She might have deduced that there had been some settlement and she might publish her suspicions. All we know is that someone he knows, has revealed information that happens to coincide with the truth of the situation.

    Surely they need proof that the father disclosed the information.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Actually they do not. The post was enough to prove to a court that he talked about the settlement and thus breached it. If he wants to sue to try to get the money back, it is he that will need to prove that he did not talk about the settlement. The court has already ruled on that he talked about it and lost the settlement. So if he wants to appeal, he is the one that needs to prove it.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The Settlement"

    One of our properties on a tropical island is called "The Settlement".

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Headmaster

    For a headmaster there doesn't seem to be much discipline in that household with regard to his own children. "SUCK IT" is not the most eloquent of retorts.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Headmaster

      You must be one of these people who reached adulthood without passing through childhood, or indeed meeting any teenagers who you could observe from a safe distance.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As the settlement is now void,

    The door is open for him to just sue them anyway as originally planned? What am I missing?

    1. stucs201

      Re: What am I missing?

      The two posts above explaining why he can't re-open the case for a start...

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No breach

    If the daughter was in court at the same time as the judgement, she may not have heard the terms from her father, who kept his word.

    1. Alex Rose
      Stop

      Re: No breach

      Apart from the fact that we are talking about an OUT-OF-COURT settlement?

      Reading comprehension. SUCK IT!

  29. TheOtherMe

    Check?

    I know this article is about an American case, but the reg is still an English publication. Did no one else spot the gratuitous Americanism 'check' where 'cheque' should have been used?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  30. Dave 142

    Story

    He should have told his daughter he'd made the money making meth in a camper van.

    1. Kubla Cant Silver badge

      Re: Story

      I wouldn't have thought it would require a mastery of subterfuge for him to keep the settlement secret from his daughter. $80k is unlikely to change the family lifestyle. In view of the apparent insecurity of his occupation, the expensive trip to Europe doesn't seem like the best course of action.

  31. Jo 5

    Its cheque book not check book. FFS this is an English paper not American, sort your spellchecker out!

  32. whydoineedabloodyhandle

    So the out of court settlement is overturned. Why can't he just sue the school again?

    1. Alex Rose

      For the reasons given to everyone else who has not bothered to read the answers given to this question raised by people who haven't bothered to read the answers previously given.

      Clear enough?

  33. cordwainer 1

    He and his wife were both allowed to know the details, but not his daughter....

    Unfortunately, he admitted he knew he was not supposed to discuss the settlement with his daughter, but decided he "needed" to do so regardless, because she was a student at the school, and had allegedly experienced some retaliatory psychological trauma owing to his lawsuit....

    However, while I agree completely the court cannot prevent spouses from sharing settlement information (they are the same legal entity for many purposes, after all), parents really need to get clear that there is NO requirement, or need, to share all adult matters with their children. Plenty of settlements - and jobs - prohibit communicating confidential data to family members. This is not cruel or unjust, nor do children have any inherent right - or genuine need - to know all details of their parents' financial or personal lives.

    My opinion (admittedly based only on the news stories to date, as I have no personal interaction with these people) is the daughter is somewhat spoiled, and the parents responsible for this to a large extent owing possibly to their own sense of entitlement or feelings of social superiority. Readers might want to check out the Wikipedia article on the school, and review some of the controversy surrounding changes during Mr. Snay's tenure as Principal. It raises the question of whether his dismissal solely involved age discrimination, or whether there might have been other issues surrounding the school's desire to end his employment. Again, only an observation, as there is no real way to know, the details of the lawsuit (except for the daughter's immature indiscretions) still being mostly confidential.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019