Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Girl's Facebook Post Costs Her Dad $80,000

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the don't-say-a-word dept.

The Courts 387

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "BBC reports that when Dana Snay learned her father had been awarded an $80,000 cash settlement in an age-discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, she couldn't resist bragging about it on Facebook. 'Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver,' the teen posted to her 1,200 Facebook friends. 'Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.' Trouble was her father had signed a confidentiality agreement so the school refused to pay a dime and a Florida appeals court has found in the school's favor. 'Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do,' wrote Judge Linda Ann Wells. 'His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.' Snay's father said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter because she suffered 'psychological scars' from issues during her enrollment at the school and was aware that they were in mediation with Gulliver attorneys. Attorneys say it's unlikely confiding in Dana Snay would have jeopardized the settlement — it was the facebook post that did them in. 'Remember when all you had to worry about was your daughter posting naked selfies of herself on Facebook?' writes Elie Mystal at Above the Law. 'Now, things are worse.'"

cancel ×

387 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIRST SHITPOST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382171)

G.N.A.A. motherfuckers.

So why is this here? (5, Insightful)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 7 months ago | (#46382179)

As near as I can tell, there's nothing especially tech related in this story. She screwed up in a way that many before her have screwed up, it's just that she happened to use facebook to do it. Nothing to see here.

Re:So why is this here? (4, Funny)

Camel Pilot (78781) | about 7 months ago | (#46382203)

I guess because the girl in question used technology to enable her to screwup in a really big way.

Re:So why is this here? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382211)

That's true of almost anyone who screwed themselves up recently. So?

Re:So why is this here? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46382277)

That's true of almost anyone who screwed themselves up recently. So?

Slashdot is an inclusive community. If you are a fuck up, if you know of a fuck up and if technology is involved.

We'll be there.

Eventually, anyway.

Re:So why is this here? (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | about 7 months ago | (#46382537)

> Eventually, anyway.

And then probably twice.

Re:So why is this here? (5, Funny)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46382243)

But it is. Remember - manual processes which often took days and could be messed up by one human error anywhere along the way can now be messed up in milliseconds with the click of a mouse. That's progress!

Re:So why is this here? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46382451)

Like the social implications of the combination of drinking and instant cell phone banking? ;-)

Re:So why is this here? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382301)

Because we hates teh Fazeboook @ Slashd0t.

Re:So why is this here? (-1)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46382317)

As near as I can tell, there's nothing especially tech related in this story. She screwed up in a way that many before her have screwed up, it's just that she happened to use facebook to do it. Nothing to see here.

OK... then.... her daughter violated the terms of their settlement. Time to proceed with the lawsuit, then, since there is no longer a settlement.

Re:So why is this here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382473)

Can they still do that? After all, they were the ones who broke the deal.

Re:So why is this here? (3, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about 7 months ago | (#46382669)

Can they still do that? After all, they were the ones who broke the deal.

It depends on the specific details of the confidentiality agreement; for it to be a legally binding contract there must be agreement and consideration (U.S. Law prevails in this case, as it took place in Miami, FL).

The normal mechanism here is that there is an exchange of "$1 and other valuable considerations", and that the settlement is considered and "additional consideration", and if the agreement is a negotiated agreement, which is typically the case, then the jude dismisses the original case with prejudice, which means it can not be legally re-raised, as (A) the separate consideration keeps the contract valid, and so (B) the dismissal with prejudice remains valid, even if the disclosure voided part of the contract, due to implied severability of contract terms.

Typically, a good lawyer on your side would prevent this type of estoppel, and you'd be able to reopen the case, but if the father in the case was very happy with the settlement amount, it might have been signed with that type of clause present, and the case could not be reasserted. A good lawyer on their side might "sweeten the pot" on the settlement to get the clause into place over your lawyers objections, if they could get you to fall for it.

So to answer your implied statement, it's likely that there is still a settlement, but it's probably $1, and it's probably already been paid, so there is no basis for reasserting the original case claims. Otherwise, this would likely not have hit the news.

Re:So why is this here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382589)

Her statement didn't nullify the settlement agreement. It simply completed the deal. Plaintiff contracted that to drop the lawsuit and be quiet about the settlement they'd get $80,000. Plaintiff also agreed that if they broke the contract by not being quiet they would get nothing. Plaintiff was not silent. Therefore plaintiff broke the contract therefore plaintiff gets nothing. That's the agreement. The agreement was not Plaintiff gets $80,000 and if they violate the contract a do over. Violation of a contract invokes the terms in which apply if a party violates the agreement.

Re:So why is this here? (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 months ago | (#46382665)

OK... then.... her daughter violated the terms of their settlement. Time to proceed with the lawsuit, then, since there is no longer a settlement.

Unlikely. A settlement is a form of contract. "We pay you $80,000. You give up the right to sue us. You also promise to keep silent about this agreement, and return the money if you don't". Neither side's lawyers would allow a settlement agreement where either side could effectively just pull out.

Re:So why is this here? (5, Informative)

Buck Feta (3531099) | about 7 months ago | (#46382441)

So why is this here?

Two words: Hugh Pickens. Remember the article about the "magical" ctrl-shift-t combo ("It's like ctrl-z for the internet!")? Hugh Pickens. Organic chemistry is hard? Hugh Pickens. The Christian Science Monitor is warns Congress not to cut food stamps? You guessed right, that's a Hugh Pickens. The guy is fucking clickbait/comment-bait. He's a scourge on slashdot, and they keep printing his inane copy-paste submissions. That's how I see it.

Re:So why is this here? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382581)

Hopefully with Beta we'll be able to filter him out.

Re:So why is this here? (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#46382499)

It's here as a reminder that Facebook is a REALLY dumb idea and that people should realize it's not private.

Are you Lost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382521)

Not sure this is the place for a Facebook fanboi.

Teenagers will do stupid things? (2)

gweihir (88907) | about 7 months ago | (#46382183)

Not news at all. However the penalty for this stupid thing is a bit harsh compared to the infraction. Maybe the parents should have explained a bit more to her what this entails and what the effects of telling anybody could be...

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (2, Informative)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46382259)

Yeah. "We screwed up. We should've known better, but we decided to do it anyway. Here's our penalty money."

"Oh, you screwed up. Your daughter didn't play by our rules. We take it all back...for teh win!"

Who's the batch of asshats who are reaming her dad out like this anyway? Sounds like it's time to shine a Slash dotlight on 'em.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46382477)

Yeah. "We screwed up. We should've known better, but we decided to do it anyway. Here's our penalty money." "Oh, you screwed up. Your daughter didn't play by our rules. We take it all back...for teh win!"

They screwed up by divulging legally privileged information to a child, who has not yet reached the maturity to appropriately respect the confidentiality requirement.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (4, Insightful)

pijokela (462279) | about 7 months ago | (#46382551)

Then they screwed up already by signing the agreement. I don't think it's realistic to have this kind of stuff happening in your family and then not telling you teenage kid the end result. I mean, after a year of mom and dad being nervous and stressed about the thing you will - not say a word to your kid? WTF kind of parenting is that? So they should not have taken an agreement that had that kind of a clause in the first place.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (4, Insightful)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about 7 months ago | (#46382673)

she's a teenage girl. you should be able to sit her down and say "Honey, We just want to let you know that we've reached a resolution. We can't legally tell you and you can't tell anyone the details but you don't have to worry it's over". A teenage girl should have the maturity to understand and accept that.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382739)

A teenage girl... maturity...

Parse Error: There is a problem parsing the sentence.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#46382917)

They should have told her before the agreement was signed. "Once the agreement was signed, we did not tell anyone."

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 7 months ago | (#46382505)

There should not be any government imposed regulations upon any individuals or their busineses regarding any type of discrimination.People discriminate all the time. Who we date ( including age, race , religion, looks, political views, mental and physical abilities or disabilities and other factors), where we shop, who we hang out with, where we live, etc. etc. People must be able to discriminate against each other without gov't meddling. This is individual freedoms we are talking about. Just because a person starts a business he or she must not be stripped of their individual rights! Age discrimination must not be a crime of any kind. Government cannot be allowed to pass laws that allow people to sue because they (factually or fictionally) were discriminated against by anybody, including employers, customers, landlords, anybody. Government job is to protect individual rights, not to provide entitlements or 'solve injustice'! All these lawsuits do is create discrimination where it may not have otherwise been in the first place. Why would I hire women, who can sue me if they decide their pay is insufficient? Why would I hire a minority, if this means I can be sued if I fire them for 'race discrimination'? Why would I hire anybody from any protected group, where gov't provides it with entitlements and imposes obligations on me as an employer? Why can I not sue somebody for buying a competing product rather than mine? They are discriminating.

These lawsuits prove me right. Don't hire anybody who is not a youngr white single male - the onlygroup of people that cannot sue me if I fire them or if one does not make exactly as much money as another.

If I could get women to do the EXACTLY the same work as men, with the same results for less money than men, I would not have even one man working for me. I only care about maximizing my own profit, that is all that matters. My business is not there to create jobs, it is there to make me money, that is its raison d'etre, nothing else. I don't care onebit if you are a black illegal disabled 100 year old Marxist translesbiangaybold satanist fuck with 20 kids and Alzheimers if you make me money. However I cannot hire you if you are, because the potential risk of lawsuit is enormously hilariously outmatching any benefit you may bring the company. So I will find a way not even to interview you. You want to FIX this? Make sure that non-discrimination laws apply strictly to the government, not to private individuals and their businesses. Until such time, unemployment among the protected classes will be higher than among those, who cannot sue their employers.

and then we will need some kind of basic income (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#46382663)

and then we will need some kind of basic income for all the people who get push out of work.

Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 7 months ago | (#46382697)

Exactly the opposite, there would be tons more jobs created for people who were previously avoided by employers due to government created discrimination. How do you read my comment and come to the exact opposite conclusion from the reality, which is this - more people are out of work due to their 'protected' status than find work because of it. These laws are taxes, nothing else. They reduce economic activity not increase it.

Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46382843)

If no economically significant employer is willing to hire a "colored" person, for example, then how should a "colored" family survive? During the Jim Crow era in the United States, having a "no colored" section was as common as a "no smoking" section because there was more potential profit in serving white people who happen to be repulsed by "colored" people than in serving "colored" people.

Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#46382933)

what about min wage laws and other laws so you can't do stuff like.

Make your workers bear the costs of business. Hell with out them it can be like the old company store days and other stuff like forcing your workers to buy / rent uniforms at high cost. Forcing workers to rent there desk. Forcing them to rent the route, Forcing them to pay for any errors, unsold products, other overhead and so on.

Having a unsafe work places and where some gets hurt fire them and not pay them the costs to get better and so on.

That is what will happen if you get rid of the laws.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (1)

JazzHarper (745403) | about 7 months ago | (#46382591)

Who's the batch of asshats who are reaming her dad out like this anyway? Sounds like it's time to shine a Slash dotlight on 'em.

Nonsense. The school negotiated in good faith and came to an acceptable settlement--quite favorable to the plaintiff, when you consider that he didn't have to prove that they had done anything wrong. It's not their fault that the Snays immediately violated the terms of the settlement.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#46382325)

I'm not sure it's really all that harsh. It sounds like this "little" girl (who might be inferred to be over 18 now, God help us all) is a real piece of work. Now, if the settlement included rescinding the $60,000 award to plaintiff's attorneys, which would then cost Mr. Snay real money out of his pocket, that would be a much tougher pill to swallow. As it is, they won't be receiving any money, which is much different than, say, sharing mp3 files and being given a bill for 5-6 figures.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382419)

What penalty? They agreed to a settlement, and signed a contract. The loudmouth twat breached the contract, and lost the payment the contract called for. The offer was $80K if the plaintiff would STFU. Plaintiff didn't STFU, plaintiff doesn't get the money.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (4, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46382525)

What penalty? They agreed to a settlement, and signed a contract. The loudmouth twat breached the contract, and lost the payment the contract called for. The offer was $80K if the plaintiff would STFU. Plaintiff didn't STFU, plaintiff doesn't get the money.

Personally, I think "confidentiality for settlement" should be illegal anyways --- it's used by large companies to pressure individuals to keep quiet, OR as an excuse to deny payment for wrongs committed.

BUT confidentiality is standard language, AND the daughter IF SHE WERE MATURE enough to have this divulged to her, should have known to ask for permission before sharing this kind of information.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382657)

Judging by the language she used, I'm guessing maturity is not high on her list of personality traits.

Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46382535)

Well,
in a sane country, with a sane legal system, parents are not 'responsible' (only liable) for actions of their ten year old children.
In other words: in europe the 'culprit' had to pay, there is no violation of the settlement, as the parents (the father?) did nothing wrong. And I'm pretty sure a clause like "we settle for this, and you keep it secret" is void anyway in europe.
A settlement is part of the "ruling", the court rules "because the parties settled to this (insert settlement) the case is dismissed, the culprit does X the plaintiff does Y" and this ruling, hence also the settlement is PUBLISHED!

"Other valuable consideration" loophole (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46382881)

because the parties settled to this (insert settlement) the case is dismissed

...where "this" refers to one dollar and other valuable consideration [slashdot.org] .

Parents will do stupid things (4, Insightful)

namgge (777284) | about 7 months ago | (#46382213)

There is only one way to keep something secret; don't tell anyone. And anyone includes your teenage daughter.

Re:Parents will do stupid things (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 7 months ago | (#46382353)

Especially your teenage daughter.

Re:Parents will do stupid things (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46382549)

So the old proverb reads "three can keep a secret if you kill your wife and your teenage daughter" nowadays? ;-)

Secret Strategy. (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#46382217)

Proceeding on the assumption a minimum of one sentient creature is required to be in the know for a secret to exist,

that is exactly where the laws of probability are greatest for containment.

Please understand the person you tell may be no better at keeping it than you were.

Honestly, it seems justified. (4, Insightful)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 7 months ago | (#46382279)

Confidentiality agreements are *gasp* legal contracts. Their daughter made a stupid mistake, as teenagers do, that doesn't change the fact that the agreement was broken.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46382397)

Look at the bright side. It's an 80,000 dollar lesson in how to keep your mouth shut. I'd hope she would now know to not tell things just because you can. I know my parents used to caution me to not tell things about our business.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (2)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 months ago | (#46382399)

Yes, this is a worthless story that was just posted here solely as fodder for people to come and complaint about anything Facebook-related.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (5, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 7 months ago | (#46382545)

"Confidentiality agreements are *gasp* legal contracts."

And there's the problem. Confidentiality agreements should be illegal in the context of a legal case. If you don't want people to know you are a scumbag company, don't be a scumbag company. Paying people off to keep the secret seems phenomenally immoral.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (5, Interesting)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 7 months ago | (#46382629)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Confidentially agreements allow companies to hide patterns of illegal behavior. Repeated bad behavior should result in escalating fines and confidentially agreements just make it that much harder for the next victim to show that there is entrenched culture of abuse.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382635)

Why bring ethics and morals up in this? Are you a Communist and enemy of profits?

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 months ago | (#46382719)

And there's the problem. Confidentiality agreements should be illegal in the context of a legal case. If you don't want people to know you are a scumbag company, don't be a scumbag company. Paying people off to keep the secret seems phenomenally immoral.

Why? What's the alternative? One alternative is that the father would have shut up and got nothing. The other alternative is that he would have gone to court, at possibly enormous cost, with no certainty about winning or losing, possibly ending up with a huge bill and no payment, or ending up with a huge bill and a possibly small payout, the company ending up with a huge bill and possible a payout, and the lawyers with lots of money in their pocket.

Remember that we don't know if the company has actually done anything wrong, or if they have done anything that was provably wrong, or anything that was wrong enough to convince a jury that they should pay out money. "Scumbag company" is an unproven assumption that you are making, nothing more.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (5, Interesting)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 7 months ago | (#46382801)

" "Scumbag company" is an unproven assumption that you are making, nothing more."

You don't seem to quite understand how the world works. This particular company may not be a scumbag company (though my understanding is that it is in fact one such organization.) This single case is immaterial. The fact is that many, many scumbag companies use the confidentiality "trick" to continue to exibit behaviours that, in many cases, lead to further deaths, disfigurements, etc. So you ask me, what's the alternative? That's easy. Make it illegal to keep secret the details of settlement agreements. Really. Seriously? You couldn't figure that out?

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382915)

Paying people off to keep the secret seems phenomenally immoral.

The agreement was to keep the payment itself and not some misdeed a secret.

Re:Honestly, it seems justified. (1)

allo (1728082) | about 7 months ago | (#46382891)

but its not her contract.

This quote says it all (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382285)

This says it all:

that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter because she suffered 'psychological scars' from issues during her enrollment at the school ".

Glad to see the employer got their bribe back from this greedy family. It sounds like the whole family needed to learn some life lessons.

keep your teen in the loop (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 7 months ago | (#46382323)

This is why it's important to communicate with your kid. These things are not difficult to foresee. Kids (and a lot of adults) tend to believe against all reason that Facebook and it's ilk are their own private playground where nothing goes past their own circle of friends. But Facebook is just the tool here -- an attractive nuisance, if you will. It's so easy to acquire the momentary satisfaction of revealing information to your circle of friends. But it's really part of a larger problem, that of knowing when to keep your mouth shut in any medium. Adults presume at their peril that kids have this kind of insight.

So if, in this case, the adult told the kid "this is what a confidentiality agreement means, and doing this or that will violate it" and the kid did it anyway, she now owes the family about a century of allowance. But if the adult did not adequately explain this, it's really the adult's fault, because this is a natural thing for kids to want to do.

Re:keep your teen in the loop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382655)

The best way is really to keep your own daughters in the dark. The government does it, so it's OK.

Mama and Papa Snay? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 7 months ago | (#46382331)

Are we sure those aren't her grandparents?

Or is he her stepfather? 'Cause if I were her stepfather, she'd be sleeping at her bio-father's house tonight...

serves them right (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 7 months ago | (#46382339)

While I don't agree that the settlement should have been confidential in the first place, a contract is a contract and he broke the damn rules.

I hope the lawyers eat their fill out of what he DID keep, and then he loses in the final appeal and gets left hung out to dry.

We hate it when big corporations weasel out of their promises, so I don't really think it's kosher to let Joe Sixpack have a free pass doing the same thing.

And honestly, I oppose confidentiality clauses on principle. This 80 grand was nothing more than hush money to bribe dad to keep his trap shut about what the company did, and this is the sort of thing the public needs to be warned about.

Re:serves them right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382433)

I wonder if this move, and the ensuing bad publicity, will ultimately cause more than $80,000 of damages. What comes out is that this company discriminated against an old person based on age, but that they, as you said, paid him hush money. (That's already not good.) Then they yanked it because of a little girl's Facebook post. (Really??) Might they be snatching a PR defeat from the jaws of victory? I guess we'll see.

Re:serves them right (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46382547)

I wonder if this move, and the ensuing bad publicity, will ultimately cause more than $80,000 of damages.

Since he violated the settlement agreement, the school may be free to sue him for the damages.

The daughter may have flipped their fate from "extra vacation"; to, "being forced to give up their house", to cover the legal costs from the school's successful lawsuit against them over breach of contract.

Re:serves them right (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382609)

I'm sure of it. I, like most people, had never heard of Gulliver Preparatory School before this fiasco. Now their name is all over the news (as are their age discrimination issues), solely because they rescinded the settlement - the fact that the girl blabbed on Facebook was inconsequential since no one outside her circle of friends knew or cared about the issue. The school had every right to take the money back, and I don't fault them for that, but I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through first.

Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. (4, Funny)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46382347)

Yup. Tell your friends. That's where you don't wanna send yer kids - they don't have any truly experienced personnel there (or so I've heard)...

Gulliver Preparatory School wins. They don't have to pay anything...but then again, they don't have any right to suppress the truth which a court of law has declared (now that the judgement is apparently void), that they're (in my opinion) just one big waste of air space and semi-human skin wrapped in a warm moist layer of fecal matter. Spread the word! Gulliver Preparatory School is the sort of learning establishment that seemingly fires all their most experienced personnel when their age becomes worrisome - why would you want a bunch of ignorant young trolls educating your kids?

Re:Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382431)

He claimed they fired him because of his age. Looks to me like they fired him because he's the kind of parent who raises a kid who gloats.

Re:Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. (3, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | about 7 months ago | (#46382855)

They paid $10K in back wages, and $60K in legal expenses, which he gets to keep. It was the $80K in punitive damages that were forfeited by the blabbermouthing.

Contracts (4, Interesting)

Martz (861209) | about 7 months ago | (#46382411)

The biggest screwup here is that the father has admitted to breaking the contract by saying "we needed to tell her something", when all he needed to do was say nothing and get the schools lawyers to prove that he told his daughter about the settlement; instead of her daughter finding out by eavesdropping on a conversation, reading a letter or bank statement.

But yes, it's more of a law story than a tech story, but I can see the Your Rights Online angle. Just.

Re:Contracts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382519)

Father was running around telling people how he "stuck it to the man". Daughter happened to get the frist post on FB.

Re:Contracts (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 7 months ago | (#46382529)

Or they could have told her to keep her God damned trap shut for once in her life.

Re:Contracts (2)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about 7 months ago | (#46382859)

Better yet, they should have just lied and said they lost, and put the money in the bank. If they haven't figured out after numerous years that they could not trust their daughter to keep her mouth shut about it, they got bigger problems on their hands, still to come.

Re:Contracts (0)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#46382571)

instead of her daughter finding out by eavesdropping on a conversation, reading a letter or bank statement.

(1) Don't have conversations about legally privileged information, outside a secure meeting room.

(2) Bank statements should be locked up; don't give your daughter access to them. If your daughter is tampering with your mail, then you have a bigger problem (breach of trust)

Re:Contracts (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 7 months ago | (#46382949)

I still think his claim that his daughter was "psychologically scarred" is kind of funny. Yeah, she's so scarred from the experience of her father not getting a job that she's bragging about a paid trip to Europe.

But... (4, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | about 7 months ago | (#46382413)

...Eric Schmidt told us there should be no reason to have any secrets.

selfies of herself (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382461)

the redundancy is redundant

What? (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46382483)

Did the girl sign on agreement? If she didn't then how would it matter what she said. If the father is restricted from saying anything then he can't, but if he didn't then what is the problem.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382559)

But he told someone... the girl, who then told the world.

Re:What? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 7 months ago | (#46382561)

He said something to the daughter.

Re:What? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46382685)

But if she didn't agree under contract to the originators of the contract then it shouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure in Canada you would get out of this no problem.

Re:What? (5, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 7 months ago | (#46382763)

No. You aren't thinking about this at all. It has nothing to do with what the daughter agreed to. The Father agreed to tell nobody, then violated that agreement by telling the daughter, which would have been a violation that never came to light if the daughter didn't subsequently blab to the world about it. You see, the violation was the father telling the daughter, not the daughter telling the world. It was the fact that the daughter told the world that made it obvious that the father told the daughter.

Re:What? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46382893)

I agree that the problem is that the father told the daughter, however making this about the daughter is wrong, the daughter could of written every national newspaper and appeared on the nightly news but unless she signed the same contract as her father, SHE and SHE alone can not be held accountable. The father is the one being held accountable in truth, the exact issue here is that he told her and that is it.

Re:What? (1)

allo (1728082) | about 7 months ago | (#46382903)

is it legal to forbid someone to speak about something with his relatives?

Re:What? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 7 months ago | (#46382861)

The daughter didn't breach anything, she just got his dad busted for telling HER about it.

Re:What? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46382925)

I agree

Re:What? (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | about 7 months ago | (#46382565)

It matters what she said because somebody told her about it, which violates the confidentiality agreement. All she had to do was not say anything. That's how confidentiality agreements work. The father even admitted to telling her, so it's pretty much cut and dry here. I think there's probably an implied acceptable breach ('Well, I guess it's OK if you tell your family') but if that leeway is abused, well, tough shit. You can't use that excuse as a way to circumvent your agreement.

Re:What? (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46382717)

Ya that still doesn't make sense, think about it, the contract was between the father and the employer, not anyone else. Granted the father told the daughter, but the daughter never had a legal contract with the employer, so by default the daughter should not be held to same standard, only the father could of voided the contract, which the idiot did, but the daughter never signed that contract, hence she should not be held to the same standard of liability.

Re:What? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#46382585)

She didn't, so he violated the agreement the second he told his daughter. Which, when dealing with a normal adult - you say "we won, we got our judgement, and we agreed that we would not talk about it, so we'll use the money to find a job and life goes on." And a normal adult would celebrate in private and never say anything unless asked, or would be cagey about the results (they came to an agreement, and my dad is looking for another position). No harm, no foul - it's like doing 68 in a 65mph zone.

But this adult, his (presumably 18 year old) daughter, decided to crow about it and make a stink in the very community the school wanted to avoid the publicity. So it's his fault for telling her, but her fault for basically ratting him out.

Re:What? (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#46382745)

The only downfall in this entire situation is that the father admitted to telling the daughter, if he wouldn't have then this entire case would still be cut and dry. Unless the daughters signature appears on the same contract as the fathers then the daughter can not and would not be held to the same level of responsibility and liability.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382603)

The father was restricted. He told the daughter. She told everyone else. The violation was him telling his daughter. He only got caught because she told everyone else.

Re:What? (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | about 7 months ago | (#46382643)

He told his daughter.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382689)

If the girl's not a party to the agreement, then how did she find out? The guy already admitted telling her, so he broke the agreement himself.

Why'd he sign the agreement? (1)

Yaotzin (827566) | about 7 months ago | (#46382501)

Gulliver obviously settled because they weren't sure about their chances to win the lawsuit, so why should he accept their terms of non-disclosure and not just see it through? It feels like he gave away a winning hand. If someone's done you wrong you'd want to tell people about it. IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.

Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? (2, Insightful)

Fishchip (1203964) | about 7 months ago | (#46382587)

IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.

Yes. The law part. Are you really saying 'Because they settled they must've been in the wrong so it's OK to break the agreement they settled on'? Do you realise how even more fucked up the world would be if everyone operated like that?

Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382659)

No he is not. Just to save you the time and effort of reading his post for what i presume would be the first time I will explain. He is saying why did he agree in the first place to the NDA. If the school was settling they were in a weaker position so he should have been able to dictate the terms.

Hope that helps.

Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382613)

Because for the defendant settling is as often about avoiding being in the press as it is about thinking you'll lose, for the plaintiff you have to pay lawyers along the way, and $80k is nothing to sneeze at for a severance package.

Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 months ago | (#46382797)

Gulliver obviously settled because they weren't sure about their chances to win the lawsuit, so why should he accept their terms of non-disclosure and not just see it through? It feels like he gave away a winning hand. If someone's done you wrong you'd want to tell people about it. IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.

Of course you are missing something. The guy probably _wanted_ people to know, but even more wanted to get some money. The settlement would have given him money, but no publicity. Alternative was going to court. Possibly _very_ expensive. No guarantee that you win. No guarantee that you win more than your lawyers cost. Definitely no guarantee that you win $80,000 more than your lawyers cost.

If your lawyer told you "we can go to court and it costs us $100,000 and them $100,000; if the other side is nasty and makes it expensive then it costs each side $200,000. If we are able to prove that they did wrong, I'd expect $100,000 payout, but with all I know getting this payout is not certain. ". Would you go to court or take the $80,000? Of course if the company's lawyers say the same thing to the company, would they go to court or offer some money?

Har Har (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 7 months ago | (#46382539)

She had "psychological scars"? Now she's gonna have some REAL scars! If she survives at all. 80000 $ gone! Poof! Because she couldn't resist boasting on fecesbook! They're so going to slice her to shreds with a rusty can opener! I hope it goes on youtube.

1200 Facebook friends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382593)

How many real friends?

So because an underage minor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382595)

So because an underage minor broke a non-disclosure agreement she was not a party to and was not bound to, it breaks the rules of an agreement that was to resolve damages done to her by her school which was settled by her parents because she was too young to bring the suit herself. Makes perfect sense....

Re:So because an underage minor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382633)

No. The lawsuit was over the father being fired. It was an age-discrimination lawsuit. He won HIS case. She had nothing to do with it which is why it was a breach of contract to tell her. Like you said, "she was not a party to" therefore the father could not tell her the terms due to the confidentiality agreement.

The father's statements about having to tell her are immaterial to the issue at hand. If she suffered damage from the school then sue over that.

Re:So because an underage minor... (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 7 months ago | (#46382809)

The father was bound by it, and breached it by telling her daughter. That alone would be cause to refuse payment. His daughter being a blabbermouth just got him caught for it.

Confidentiality agreements suck (1)

seebs (15766) | about 7 months ago | (#46382683)

And this is a big part of why.

This shouldn't be on slashdot. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382803)

This shouldn't be on slashdot. Please post relevant articles pertaining to science, technology, software development, and more technological relevant discussions. That shit belongs on yahoo news. Please leave it there.

We didn't burn him... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46382827)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOtpgz4L5d8

Better off hurding cats. Sometime you can't stop people saying stuff and sometimes you can't stop people saying stuff at exactly the wrong time. Sometimes some of these people are women. Sometimes its one of the women who's shit you have to deal with. It's never cheap.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>