Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sauce

Call it the biggest Facebook mistake ever. A daughter’s snarky status update has cost her father the $80,000 settlement he won during an age discrimination lawsuit.

According to the Miami Herald, Patrick Snay, 69, was the headmaster at Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami for several years, but in 2010, the school didn’t renew his contract. Snay sued his former employer for age discrimination and won a settlement of $80,000 in November 2011. The agreement contained a standard confidentiality clause, prohibiting Snay or the school from talking about the case.

However, Snay’s daughter, Dana, now at Boston College and a part-time Starbucks barista, couldn’t resist bragging about the case on Facebook. “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver,” she wrote. “Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

Dana has 1,200 Facebook friends, many of whom are current and former Gulliver students and news of the post made its way back to the school’s lawyers, who appealed the verdict. The Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the $80,000 discrimination suit earlier this week. “Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do,” Judge Linda Ann Wells wrote. “His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.”

According to depositions obtained by the Miami Herald, Snay argued that he needed to share the news with his daughter because she suffered “psychological scars” from her time at the school and besides, she knew her parents were in mediation. “We knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something,” he said. Snay is now headmaster at Riviera Preparatory Academy in Coral Gables. He is allowed to file a motion for rehearing and also appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

However, the odds of Snay 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 their contract. “The bottom line is, when involved in legal proceedings, don’t disclose anything on social media,” says Shear. “It’s not worth it.”

Oh, and that European vacation? Probably not happening now.

Also, am I the only one that finds "1200 Facebook Friends" to be a bit much?

I feel bad for the Dad, but talk about one hell of a life lesson learned by the daughter.

Isn't a ruling public information though?

She might not have been entitled to know amounts or anything but a court rules, this becomes a matter of record, no?

Anyone can have 1,200 Facebook friends. There are companies that arrange that sort of stuff for you for very reasonable cost.

Sounds fine to me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Isn't a ruling public information though?

She might not have been entitled to know amounts or anything but a court rules, this becomes a matter of record, no?

If it had a been a court hearing maybe, but this seems to have been settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement attached stating they weren't allowed to talk about it. Which they did, and that person told 1200 others. Realistically the problem isn't telling the daughter, but that after telling her she then proceeded to make a public spectacle of it.

*facepalm.jpg

Really sucks for the father. I'm sure she's a popular girl with the family at the moment.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Isn't a ruling public information though?

She might not have been entitled to know amounts or anything but a court rules, this becomes a matter of record, no?

Not settlements, no.

Poor dad, if I were him, I would never give my daughter any pocket money for the rest of her life. Also ground her for the rest of her life.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Isn't a ruling public information though?

She might not have been entitled to know amounts or anything but a court rules, this becomes a matter of record, no?

If it had a been a court hearing maybe, but this seems to have been settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement attached stating they weren't allowed to talk about it. Which they did, and that person told 1200 others. Realistically the problem isn't telling the daughter, but that after telling her she then proceeded to make a public spectacle of it.

Evidently, realistically the problem was telling the daughter...

All he had to tell her was hey - everything's done, everything's good now.

On the positive that part time Starbucks gig just got a whole lot more permanent.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyone can have 1,200 Facebook friends. There are companies that arrange that sort of stuff for you for very reasonable cost.

you don't need companies or money for FB friends.

Play farmville
ask for neighbors
get lots of FB friends.

1200 is pretty low actually some are into the 10k+ range

If you're getting a settlement like that make sure that everyone knows not to talk about it. Ever.

This man is an idiot. You can not even trust family members with matters of money. Everyone knows that.

Confidential means confidential.. even to your wife, child, priest. etc

I'm glad we are all morally superior to the man in story and that we would not tell our daughter about a significant life event that happened to us.

She's going to have to do some serious overtime in Starbucks to pay that back...

Actually I did once win a settlement and proposed confidentiality to get a higher amount. I did not tell a soul what that number is.. Not my gf, not my best friend, certainly no family members.

It's a nice view from on this horse.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm glad we are all morally superior to the man in story and that we would not tell our daughter about a significant life event that happened to us.

If the significant event in question relied upon us not telling her and it wouldn't hurt her to not know then what does it matter?
Actively lying about it would probably be morally wrong but in this case it's not wrong or right. There's nothing wrong with privacy, just because I am related to someone doesn't mean I am going to tell them everything that happens to me.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm glad we are all morally superior to the man in story and that we would not tell our daughter about a significant life event that happened to us.

Having been involved in settlements, yea I can in fact feel morally and legally superior.

You say "that legal issue is over and has been resolved but we can't talk about it."

 Frazzled wrote:
I can in fact feel morally and legally superior.

It is only because you have a legion of wieners backing you up.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I can in fact feel morally and legally superior.

It is only because you have a legion of wieners backing you up.

This made me lol, primarily because of the way I read what Ahtman wrote... you think Ex-Lax will help with that?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Isn't a ruling public information though?

She might not have been entitled to know amounts or anything but a court rules, this becomes a matter of record, no?

The school got some man eating lawyers that said otherwise.
"Justice" is only a check-book away.

I think the reversal of the settlement is unfair, first there would have to be proof of source of the leak.
Second it would have to be proven that Dana Snay had no knowledge of the lawsuit before a settlement clause was arranged
Third the settlement cluase if so would have to be specifically binding on her in wording.

If Dana Snay broke the settlement clause on a social media site then ok, we have a nice story about how people should be more careful what they post.

However in all other circumstances Patrick Snay has a good case. It all depends at what point the terms of the settlement confidentiality clause were imposed and upon whom. If Dana Snay is supposed to shut up for life on the subject, where is her compensation for having to do so. You cant ask a third party to keep quiet about a settlement if they are aware of it a priori. This of course assumes she was aware there was a lawsuit before a settlement clause was agreed.
We would have to see the wording, but I smell a rat here.

[/internet lawyer]

 djones520 wrote:
I feel bad for the Dad, but talk about one hell of a life lesson learned by the daughter.

I don't feel bad for the Dad. If something needs to be kept secret, you tell people who are on your side and smart enough not to go blabbing it around. And that includes your own children.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm glad we are all morally superior to the man in story and that we would not tell our daughter about a significant life event that happened to us.

There's a difference between telling your kid 'we've come to terms and we're happy to move on' and 'they're giving us $x'

And confidentiality aside, who tells their kids this stuff anyway. I don't know how much my parents have in investments. I have no interest in telling my kids. Knowing that is, I don't know, it seems kind of... inheritancy.

Also, NDAs that leak for dumb reasons, but cause exactly the harm they were meant to prvent, are pretty easy to enforce.

Obviously the school didn't want the rest of the staff/teachers/students to know about the amount of the settlement. That they learned it was enough for a European vacation is a pretty decent breach. It was also snide and triumphant, which again is exactly what NDAs in settlements are trying to prevent.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I feel bad for the Dad, but talk about one hell of a life lesson learned by the daughter.

I don't feel bad for the Dad. If something needs to be kept secret, you tell people who are on your side and smart enough not to go blabbing it around. And that includes your own children.

From the info available to us there is no evidence to suggest that Dana Snay knew the size of the settlement.
It has yet to be proven that she wasn't only aware of the settlement indirectly through increased family means and a sense of wellbeing from her father after a certain point.

If the case has any emotional pressure, which it likely had and/or if the monies received were to be used at all the fact that the case was won could be indirectly apparent. In total Patrick Snay might have kept critical info from his daughter entirely in keeping with the settlment deal.

Now if we had quoted Facebook transcripts revealing details of the settlement we would know more, but from what we see Dana Snay somehow realised that her father won a settlement lawsuit, this offers no proof that Patrick Snay broke the terms of the settlement, in fasct it could be argued that completely masking the settlement is impossible to achieve and an unfair stipulation, as it would involve never discussing the results of the court case, and never visibly spending the proceeds.

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm glad we are all morally superior to the man in story and that we would not tell our daughter about a significant life event that happened to us.

There's a difference between telling your kid 'we've come to terms and we're happy to move on' and 'they're giving us $x'

To withold settlement payment due to breach of terms the latter needs to be proven.

 sebster wrote:

And confidentiality aside, who tells their kids this stuff anyway. I don't know how much my parents have in investments. I have no interest in telling my kids. Knowing that is, I don't know, it seems kind of... inheritancy.

Unless well off to begin with it would be hard to conceal an $80K windfall from the immediate family while tapping into it.

 Orlanth wrote:

Unless well off to begin with it would be hard to conceal an $80K windfall from the immediate family while tapping into it.

I'm sure you didn't mean the word in the legal sense, but if the $80k was a true windfall, and not actual damages, that's all the more reason to have a problem with it.

It would be hilarious to find out the daughter was a law major. Just saying.

Facebook makes people stupid. Reeeeally stupid.

 Polonius wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Unless well off to begin with it would be hard to conceal an $80K windfall from the immediate family while tapping into it.

I'm sure you didn't mean the word in the legal sense, but if the $80k was a true windfall, and not actual damages, that's all the more reason to have a problem with it.

I used the term windfall because it would be from the perspective of someone in the dark about the settlement 'money from nowhere'.

In order to look at this case more clearly we have to paint a probably picture.

1. The plaintiff Patrick Snay has his future livelihood threatened under circumstances that may be considered discriminatory.
He is likely upset and worried.

2. Mr Snay decided to sue.
He is likely still worried as court cases are always a risk. Even visibly open shut court cases like the mustard-on-pants case are still stressful for those involved.

3. During a period with an uncertain financial future a teenage daughter still needs new shinies from her daddy.
However daddy cant afford a foreign trip for her, or a new prom dress or a pony or those shoes or a whales worth of cosmetics.

4. Mr Snay wins his case probably through an out of court settlement, but has to sign an agreement to conceal the results of his case.
Mr Snay celebrates only cautiously.

5. His teenage daughter still needs new shinies from her daddy.
But daddy can afford to buy her new shoes, cosmetics and pay for a foreign trip.

6. A teenage daughter who daddy says 'yes' to over something expensive is going to be very happy for a little while. She might want to tell everyone the good news that she is getting this or that.....

The quotes that damn the family are very thin, and could be gleaned from observation. The observation might not even be her own but a girlfriend she talks to who puts two and two to get four.

The most we know is that he had to tell his daughter 'something', this could be as simple as "I won the case, but I cant provide you any details."

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Facebook makes people stupid. Reeeeally stupid.

Cant argue with that. The public example from this story is useful even if this casse is rather draconian.

 Orlanth wrote:
6. A teenage daughter who daddy says 'yes' to over something expensive is going to be very happy for a little while. She might want to tell everyone the good news that she is getting this or that.....

Yeah.... you might want to read what she actually posted;

However, Snay’s daughter, Dana, now at Boston College and a part-time Starbucks barista, couldn’t resist bragging about the case on Facebook. “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver,” she wrote. “Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

That goes just a wee bit further than what you are suggesting happened. In any event unless we know the details of the settlement we are making a lot of suppositions.
The facts are that a settlement was reached. There was a confidentiality clause. The daughter posted on FB. The college took the matter back to Court. The Court found that the confidentiality clause had been breached and that the settlement monies were forfeit.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
6. A teenage daughter who daddy says 'yes' to over something expensive is going to be very happy for a little while. She might want to tell everyone the good news that she is getting this or that.....

Yeah.... you might want to read what she actually posted;

However, Snay’s daughter, Dana, now at Boston College and a part-time Starbucks barista, couldn’t resist bragging about the case on Facebook. “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver,” she wrote. “Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

That goes just a wee bit further than what you are suggesting happened. In any event unless we know the details of the settlement we are making a lot of suppositions.
The facts are that a settlement was reached. There was a confidentiality clause. The daughter posted on FB. The college took the matter back to Court. The Court found that the confidentiality clause had been breached and that the settlement monies were forfeit.

I did indeed read what she wrote.

Now prove she didn't come by this information any other way than from disclosure from her parents. She was aware of the problem and of the case and knew the school. She was aware her father came into some money about the same time he was no longer worried about the unfair dismissal lawsuit, she was aware the case was ended from her father, but there is no proof he told her any more than that.

These stipulations are unenforceable if the information can be gleaned in other ways. We have no knowledge that Dana Snay knew any specifics of the settlement or such information was disclosed by her father and she would likely have been aware of the case a priori.
If she mentioned $80K damages then there would have been a confidentiality breach, all she knew from her dad was that he won his case and she could have discerned that anyway through external means. That level of info was inconcealable to a closely related third party and thus the terms were unfair.

The big issue here is how much can you keep a secret information that is already partly disclosed. It is fair to assume that Patricks Snay's family were aware of the existance of the lawsuit a priori, in other words they knew a suit was pending prior to any settlement terms being discussed. Therefore settlement terms to be fair and reasonably enforceable must include what can be said to someone who already has some of the information. A fair and reasonable assessment of this is to reveal that the case was 'successfully closed' revealing no further details beyond this point.
Dana Snay therefore can reasonably told the case was successfully closed. Now at that point Patrick Snay cannot reveal the forfiture terms of the settlement to his daughter, or others who knew of the case a priori. This allows third parties to make reasonable assumptions of their own and while it might not be wise for them to post them on a social media site, it is within their rights to do so.

A good lawyer can argue the original terms were unenforceable. Patrick Snay was not in a position to deny the existance of a settlement lawsuit to those with a priori knowledge of it and was unable to warn those who had a priori knowledge of it of the settlement terms restrictions if he cannot mention its existance. Thus he is not easily provably responsible as a source for his daughters indiscretions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


Having been involved in settlements, yea I can in fact feel morally and legally superior.

You say "that legal issue is over and has been resolved but we can't talk about it."

Frazzie is giving us a good example of this legal paradox. So lets put him in these shoes. Sorry Frazzie.

The terms stipulated not being able to even mention the existance of the settlement.
So if I knew you had a settlement coming and asked you about it Frazzies answer would be in breach of the settlement.

This makes sense in relation to third parties who have no knowledge of a settlement. It prevents Frazzie from volunteering to say he had a settlement for undisclosed terms. However it does nothing to enable him to ward off questions from people with a priori or third hand knoweldge of the case without flat denial of there ever being a settlement.

Frazzies only legal remaining response is: 'No comment'.

This is an unfair an unenforceable term to enforce on close family members as it denies any form of closure and needs to be perpetuated indefinately. This is not practically possible with an inquisitive teenager in the house, or an inquisitive wife etc etc. From all accounts it appears Patrick Snay said to his daughter about as much as Frazzie gave in his example. Case was over, but no further details coming. As he said, he had to say 'something', so he apparently told her the minimum, broadly comparable to what Frazzie quoted.

Now to top this by being completely unable to discuss the settlement Frazzie is unable to warn his family to say nothing to anyone as you cannot warn someone of clauses of settlement terms without mentioning their existence.

You say "that legal issue is over and has been resolved but we can't talk about it."

This is not enough in this case. Frazzie would need to add caveats warning his family not to mention a case because of its terms without relaying any information on its existance. Thus Frazzie is unable to warn relatives of friends with a priori knowledge not to draw their own conclusions, seek answers elsewhere, or recognise there might be any lifestyle connection of the plaintiff stemming from the time they were no longer able to talk about the lawsuit.

It's a fething nightmare and enough of a legal paradox for a good shark to chew over and perhaps take before a bench.