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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday March 2, 2014 @05:40AM from the don't-say-a-word dept.

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.'"

387 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So why is this here? by rebelwarlock · 2014-03-02 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:So why is this here? by Camel+Pilot · 2014-03-02 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I guess because the girl in question used technology to enable her to screwup in a really big way.
2. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 05:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's true of almost anyone who screwed themselves up recently. So?
3. Re:So why is this here? by mmell · 2014-03-02 05:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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!
4. Re:So why is this here? by ColdWetDog · 2014-03-02 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 05:58 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Because we hates teh Fazeboook @ Slashd0t.
6. Re:So why is this here? by Buck+Feta · 2014-03-02 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am Audience.
7. Re:So why is this here? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-03-02 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Like the social implications of the combination of drinking and instant cell phone banking? ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Can they still do that? After all, they were the ones who broke the deal.
9. Re:So why is this here? by erroneus · 2014-03-02 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's here as a reminder that Facebook is a REALLY dumb idea and that people should realize it's not private.
10. Re:So why is this here? by Threni · 2014-03-02 06:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  > Eventually, anyway.
  And then probably twice.
11. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Hopefully with Beta we'll be able to filter him out.
12. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  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.
13. Re:So why is this here? by gnasher719 · 2014-03-02 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
14. Re:So why is this here? by tlambert · 2014-03-02 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
15. Re:So why is this here? by pepty · 2014-03-02 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  So assuming the ruling stands, is it likely the dad now owes his lawyers the $60k in fees they were awarded as part of the settlement?
16. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  The same could be said of Slashdot. It's not private and it's a dumb idea.
  
  Oh, and that you're a bitch ass trick...
17. Re:So why is this here? by ATMAvatar · 2014-03-02 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To err is human, but to truly screw up requires a computer.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
18. Re:So why is this here? by ScentCone · 2014-03-02 08:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's here as a reminder that Facebook is a REALLY dumb idea and that people should realize it's not private.
  Facebook doesn't make stupid posts, people make stupid posts.
  
  Are kitchen knives a really dumb idea after you cut off your finger while making dinner?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
19. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  You clicked on the story, you commented on the story. Why oh why would you bother if all you're going to do is whine. Skip the fuck over next time.
20. Re:So why is this here? by Maritz · 2014-03-02 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Whereas anonymously badmouthing someone is badass as hell.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
21. Re:So why is this here? by HangingChad · 2014-03-02 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  OK... then.... her daughter violated the terms of their settlement.
  If the daughter's not 18, how can she be bound by the settlement? It doesn't seem reasonable that the father would be responsible for any thoughtless comment by a family member, regardless of the medium.
  Seems this ruling seems overly broad.
  
  --
  That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
22. Re:So why is this here? by Atzanteol · 2014-03-02 11:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The dad had signed the agreement - he wasn't supposed to tell his daughter. Her spouting it on Facebook proves that he did.
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
23. Re:So why is this here? by Xeno+man · 2014-03-02 12:13 · Score: 2
  
  Don't talk about this means don't talk about this. While telling his daughter about what is going on is not unreasonable, not hammering home that fact that she shouldn't say anything about it is his fault. Regardless of how the information became public, his daughter, his wife, himself, the source of the information came directly from him and that violates the agreement.
24. Re:So why is this here? by tlambert · 2014-03-02 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  So assuming the ruling stands, is it likely the dad now owes his lawyers the $60k in fees they were awarded as part of the settlement?
  Obviously, the papers have not been published by the court, and Snay's lawyers have not been identified. However, it's typical of this type of case for the fees to have been paid on contingency.
  Also, regardless of the $80,000, it's unlikely that the $10,000 in back pay and $60,000 in fees were contingent on non-breach of confidentiality; the $80K was specifically to keep them from doing exactly what they are doing now, and publicizing both the facts of the case and the terms of the settlement. My expectation is that the fees and the back pay would have been subject to the same terms os the dismissal with prejudice,
  To put it another way, the $80K was likely "hush money" to keep other similar cases from coming forward on the precedent (not a case law precedent) of the case having been won. Given that, it's likely that there are likely more than 2 but less than 4 cases where the same situation that applied Snay may pertain. If that's the case, with the cat being already out of the bag, then the costs of payout in those cases would be less than the $80K on settlement, and without confidentiality, those cases, if they existed, would likely not hurt the school any more than it's already hurt.
  IMO, This is likely a case of sour grapes, since the Facebook post didn't result in news stories until after it was put in context by the school being offended by it and taking them back to court for breach of the confidentiality agreement, which, I think, is what actually made it news. In other words, "Streisand Effect". Most likely someone at the school had "buyers remorse" on the settlement.
25. Re: So why is this here? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  No. She could have deduced it from the obvious facts. Case ended. Dad has money. We won.
26. Re:So why is this here? by RubberDogBone · 2014-03-02 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. His lawyer's bills still exist even if the money no longer does.
  His kid really stiffed him for 80 + 60, not just 80. I bet she pays her own way through college now.
  
  --
  Sig for hire.
27. Re: So why is this here? by Camael · 2014-03-02 16:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Read the article.
  
  Snay, however, immediately told his daughter that he’d settled and was happy with the results. He said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something because she suffered “psychological scars” from issues during her enrollment at the school and was aware that they were in mediation with Gulliver attorneys.
  Man flaps mouth, man loses money.
28. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hugh Pickens is the new Roland. I hope he dies like Roland.
29. Re: So why is this here? by ShieldW0lf · 2014-03-02 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's good on so many levels. Entitled old bastard, attempts to screw society out of a bunch of money in secret, the corrupted officials try to secretly pay him to go away, but the whole thing blows up in everyones faces. Entitled old parasite gets nothing, corrupted officials are exposed and its a happy ending all around.
  Confidential agreements should not be enforceable in the first place. I love seeing people who sign them get fucked over.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
30. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  Can telling one's daughter realistically count as breaking a confidentiality agreement especially if she still lives with you? Assuming you are awarded a large sum of money, your daughter would have to be an idiot not to notice the sudden lifestyle change. And one would also presume that before the confidentiality agreement is signed, the daughter would be aware that a legal matter is on going between her father and his previous employer. Thus when the case ends and dad is suddenly $80000 richer, 2 + 2 = I can't figure out where that money came from? The only way he should have been found guilty of breaking the agreement is if a) he had told someone who didn't previously know about the case about the case, b) he disclosed the amount to someone who previously knew about the case, c) he asked his daughter to make the post. One could reasonably assume that the daughter would have found out the amount of the settlement in a myriad of ways since she lived in the same house.
31. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  A serious question here: why should secrecy clauses be enforced under contract law? If it was impossible for someone to legally bind themselves to silence on an issue, to give up some fraction of their right to free speech, would we lose anything of value? And wouldn't we benefit from the improved transparency, which is one of the underlying principles required for a free market?
32. Re:So why is this here? by ottothecow · 2014-03-03 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, ctrl-shift-t is magical. I found out about it years ago and use it multiple times per day.
  In fact, now that I have started doing my breakfast/couchbound casual browsing on a Nexus 7 instead of a netbook, I have come to miss the ease of restoring closed tabs (that and easy within-page searching...you can at least do that on a tablet, but it is a lot slower than with ctrl-f and f3)
  
  --
  Bottles.
33. Re:So why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, if only there was a way to browse Slashdot while only clicking on the articles that are interesting to you...
34. Re:So why is this here? by _xeno_ · 2014-03-03 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know which is more depressing, honestly, that stories like this do make Slashdot, or that stories like Twitch Plays Pokemon, where someone hooked up Pokemon Red to the Twitch chat system and Twitch viewers managed to play through the entire game don't. As the link demonstrates, it made the freaking BBC. It was even on the front page of NPR at one point. But not Slashdot.
  This, on the other hand...
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
35. Re:So why is this here? by scamper_22 · 2014-03-03 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny, but what you say is actually true.
  Let us suppose before the internet, this girl might have bragged about it to a few of her friends. Maybe in a live conversation, somoene close to her would find out and then her parents could have corrected her... In many cases, there would be no record or the interested party might not even find out.
  With technology and Facebook, the message is broadcast to a much wider audience with a recorded trail.
  It really is a technology issue.
  When using technology you have to be much more aware and careful than with the manual things you did in the past.
  Speed and scale do indeed make things a different issue.
36. Re:So why is this here? by lucien86 · 2014-03-03 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Non-disclosure agreement = criminal with money pays victim to cover up crime.
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
37. Re:So why is this here? by Xeno+man · 2014-03-05 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all, he agreed to the terms, he could have easily not agreed to them or even countered their offer with his own terms that exclude NDA. He could have let the courts decide the outcome which would have been very public.
Teenagers will do stupid things? by gweihir · 2014-03-02 05:43 · Score: 2

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...

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mmell · 2014-03-02 05:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Overzeetop · 2014-03-02 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
3. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mysidia · 2014-03-02 06:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mysidia · 2014-03-02 06:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-03-02 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  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!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
7. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by pijokela · 2014-03-02 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by JazzHarper · 2014-03-02 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Judging by the language she used, I'm guessing maturity is not high on her list of personality traits.
10. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by thewolfkin · 2014-03-02 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
11. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A teenage girl... maturity...
  
  Parse Error: There is a problem parsing the sentence.
12. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  They should have told her before the agreement was signed. "Once the agreement was signed, we did not tell anyone."
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
13. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mysidia · 2014-03-02 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  They should have told her before the agreement was signed. "Once the agreement was signed, we did not tell anyone."
  This is their best bet: claim not to have told her about it.
  Take the story that they didn't disclose to her the settlement details: she had some prior knowledge about the case, and she correctly guessed the settlement details that the defendant wanted secret.
14. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by immaterial · 2014-03-02 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  The girl is 19, not 10. And the parents aren't responsible for her actions - they're responsible for their own. They agreed to a settlement that required they not tell anyone, then they told their daughter.
15. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by TooMuchToDo · 2014-03-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
16. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure it's really all that harsh.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.
  He will have to pay the attorneys' fees for the appeals, regardless of whether he ultimately wins.
17. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-03-02 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I read/saw 10 (instead of 19).
  So I agree, it's the fathers own fault then. (Still questioning how a 'don't tell anyone' clause can be legal.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
18. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of retards are people raising?
  I got to hear lots of interesting things when I was young, and I always understood that I wasn't supposed to talk about it to anyone, even if my parents were present.
  My parents clearly told me I wasn't supposed to know that shit, but that since I was their kid they thought I might hear things and so instead they decided to just let me know anyway.
  I never talked about to my friends or family or anyone else. It's not that fucking hard to control what you say to people.
19. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Did you just breeze in from a fictional rendition of 1970?
  12 year olds are tried as adults all the time, 14 year olds are typically tried as adults for violent crimes in most states, 16 year olds are automatically routed into adult court for all charges in a few states (NC for example), 17 year olds in a few more (NY for example).
20. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Nyder · 2014-03-02 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  Telling her wasn't the problem. Her telling everyone via Facebook is the problem.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
21. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is no violation of the settlement, as the parents (the father?) did nothing wrong.!
  The violation occurred when (one of) the parents told the daughter.
  If that is all that happened, the father would still have the settlement. The Miami Herald article suggests that even if the school learned privately that the daughter knew, the courts would probably rule that the settlement was not violated. The parent is being penalized for starting the chain of events that led to the very public disclosure of the settlement.
  I wonder what would have happened if the daughter merely revealed that there was a settlement, without any details? That might be public information anyway, or easily inferred from public information.
  With regard to European law, I know that in Britain, a losing plaintiff is likely to be saddled with the respondent's costs. This prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but it suppresses justified ones as well. I am not aware of a good solution to this (I don't know how it is in the rest of Europe, either.)
22. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by technomom · 2014-03-02 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Her parents should have simply kept their mouths shut about the settlement entirely. They had one job to do in this settlement. They didn't do it.
23. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is their best bet: claim not to have told her about it.
  The fatal flaw in this ruse is that it depends on the daughter keeping quiet.
24. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  But this was in the UK not the USA
25. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by ScentCone · 2014-03-02 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
  Exactly. And so this (her actions) are her parent's responsibility. And so the fact that the information they agreed to keep private was out in public is the fault of the parents, and they are suffering exactly the consequences that they agreed to suffer for doing that exact thing.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
26. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by pepty · 2014-03-02 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Ethics aside, If they told her not to tell anyone about the settlement but she did anyway, is it really a good risk to have her collude in perjury?
27. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gweihir · 2014-03-02 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  That is a good question. But the problem here is the screwed up US legal system.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
28. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by pepty · 2014-03-02 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Still questioning how a 'don't tell anyone' clause can be legal.
  Non-disclose clauses in other settings, like employment contracts, are pretty commonplace. Legal settlements are much more hairy ethically, but they don't override law enforcement or (some) subpoenas.
29. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gweihir · 2014-03-02 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Something went pretty seriously wrong here.
  On the plus side, this will be a lesson that she and her parents will not forget. Expensive, but cheaper than P: "honey, be careful with the car" T:"whatever", and the next time she drives it is a wheelchair or never again. (No, I do not blame her. I do not know enough to blame anybody. But lets keep this in perspective, 80k is not that much.)
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
30. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gweihir · 2014-03-02 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, US society holds children responsible at an arbitrary low age, or die you forget the 6 year old that made it on the sex-offenders list? Or all those children that are judged "as adults" for crimes they clearly did not comprehend?
  Sane society starts to put some accountability on children at 14 or so, a bit more at 16 and full at 18, with the possibility to judge them as children if they have a developmental issue until, say 22 or so. Not US society. There children have full responsibility, just not the rights that should go with it. A sick society.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
31. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mpoulton · 2014-03-02 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  As a plaintiff's attorney (the one doing the suing of large companies), I often need confidentiality terms in settlement agreements for a variety of strategic reasons. It is not an abusive tactic used by large companies against individuals, it is a specifically bargained-for provision of a settlement contract which both attorneys negotiate. The last thing anyone needs is more legislation controlling what kinds of deals people are or are not allowed to make.
  
  --
  I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
32. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Mashiki · 2014-03-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
  Bzzt. Sorry, but in the US the mens rea varies by state, but is anywhere between 8-12(might be lower in a few states). That's the "action where by which the individual has the mental understanding to know the difference between right and wrong." Canada however it's 12, or as my old criminal law professor said: "In Canada, at the age of 12 the mens rea fairy comes along and hits you in the head with the magical mallet and you suddenly know the difference between right and wrong."
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
33. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  A good lawyer can word it to a manner where they didn't actually tell her. She knew before the settlement. The post didn't reveal any specifics. Is it really a breach of the confidentiality to tell your family member "that unplesantness is over. You may go to Europe now." And let them draw their own conclusions? That, and any brat bragging about such things, milking money from her parents and such, probably doesn't deserve the trip.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
34. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  better is to coach her into a plausible story. "we didn't tell you any of the details. We told you that the matter was over, and we now had money to go to Europe. That you inferred that we won was not from us telling you that we won. If you mess this one up, we'll cut up your passport and you'll never go."
  
  Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed, and that isn't a breach of the agreement, is it? Perhaps there was more detail in other posts not in TFA, but she didn't reveal the amount of the win or anything else that wasn't previously known before the agreement, other than she was now allowed to go to Europe on family money. If they can keep her quiet through another trial, it's impossible to prove that the agreement was breached.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
35. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by BasilBrush · 2014-03-02 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  You say it in a biased way, assuming a level of stress displayed to the child was a necessary part of what happened. But it wasn't necessarily like that.
  Good parenting? Good parenting is not sharing your financial affairs good or bad with your children. I never had, and never needed to have any details of my parents financial affairs, even the big ones like house and car buying, whether or not they inherited anything, and whilst I was aware when there were legal issues regarding accidents, I never knew the financial details. It's not information kids need to know, and there's no point having them worried about it.
  Likewise any windfalls will only have them expecting their share, just like his kid. For sure it's good to finance their kids trip to Europe. But it's bad to share with them the financial circumstances behind which they will or won't get it.
36. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by immaterial · 2014-03-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Not that much? $80k is two years of full-time work for the average American. Simply because more expensive mistakes exist doesn't mean there is any reasonable or sensible perspective from which 80 thousand dollars is "not that much."
37. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately in the UK, mens rea doesn't apply for certain crimes.
38. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by BasilBrush · 2014-03-02 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  These settlements out of court, with non-disclosure agreements, are bad for society. They happen when an organisation knows it's guilty, and wants it covering up. Which makes them free to commit the same offence over and over again.
39. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by BasilBrush · 2014-03-02 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Don't be ridiculous. She's a kid who posted on FB like a kid. It gives you no insight into what sort of a person she is.
40. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by anagama · 2014-03-02 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  Not that I'm against underaged drinking, have engaged in that myself decades ago, but she is obviously the kind of kid who has no issue posting incriminating evidence of her crimes. That is at least a little insight into who she is. Plus, Busch Light? That should grant further insight:
  http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/0...
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
41. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like it's time to shine a Slash dotlight on 'em.
  
  Slashdot is not your private army, go ask /b/
42. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  > or did you forget the 6 year old that made it on the sex-offenders list?
  Don't exaggerate.
43. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Fubar420 · 2014-03-02 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's a breach to tell your spouse -- but the courts protect spouses from testifying against each other, so if your spouse doesn't post on facebook....
  
  --
  -- (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
44. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Rich0 · 2014-03-02 09:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I agree completely. Exclusive contracts and confidentiality clauses should be illegal. In fact, I'd go a step further and make any contract unenforceable in court unless it is published. Just provide a government service where anybody can publish a contract and anybody can peruse the contracts which are there. It would cost very little to operate or use in the modern age of computers.
45. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  If he's stupid enough to lose even more money by appealing such a clear-cut decision then I suspect age was the least of the reasons he was let go in the first place.
46. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  A teenage girl... maturity...
  Parse Error: There is a problem parsing the sentence.
  My English language interpreter crashed trying to parse the semantic meaning of teenage girl... maturity... and it wasn't the ellipses. Now I have a smouldering notebook computer sitting on the edge of my desk. Thankfully, the fire extinguisher was nearby. Teenage girls are maturity...not.
47. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by DarkOx · 2014-03-02 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25
  Fully developed also does not need to be the universal one size fits all standard for deciding is someone is responsible for their actions or not.
  Its not like this girl was six, she is 19 now. So would have been in her middle to late teens the entire time this was going on. I agree with other posters who have pointed out it would have been impossible for her parents to not let her in on at least the basics. They can't reasonably have hidden the existence a major legal dispute from their daughter they live with, they can't reasonably have nor let her know it was settled. Normal families communicate a little more than that.
  Still at say 15 it should absolutely be possible for a parent to tell a kid "look we are in a legal dispute about our employment and we will tell you the basic facts but you need to understand its nobodies business but ours and you don't talk about it with your friends, write about it on Facespace etc. If you do we won't be able to keep you in the loop, as things go forward."
  Upon reaching a settlement with a NDA like they did you probably also have fill your late teens daughter in on something like that; for family and human reasons. You again reminder her she can't talk about it, and you couch her on what she can say if anyone starts asking questions, you tell her just say something like "My parents came to an agreement with them, but I don't know the details".
  The girl is either tragically stupid and or the parents are. The not fully developed brain is in pretty much the optimal condition for learning behaviors. Parents absolutely should be teaching kids things like discretion. Its more true and necessary in today's world of Facespace than ever. My parents taught me some things you keep to yourself, somethings you keep in the family, somethings are not private but also not for polite company, some stuff you share. A middle to late teenager while probably still working some of that out should have had a good enough handle to correctly navigate this rather unambiguous situation. Either she wasn't given all the facts or wasn't raised right.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
48. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by BasilBrush · 2014-03-02 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like some perfectly ordinary photos of some nice college girls to me. No law breaking.
  Theres no law in Boston preventing kids drinking alcohol on private premises with their parents consent. The pictures with the can are obviously at a private party. Unless you know for a fact there was no parental consent...
49. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by TapeCutter · 2014-03-02 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  You can't hide the fact a settlement exists if it was used to dismiss a court case.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
50. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the story presented by this 'good lawyer' is factually correct, my point still stands, even though the story may be consistent with all so-far revealed facts.
51. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gnasher719 · 2014-03-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I read/saw 10 (instead of 19).
  So I agree, it's the fathers own fault then. (Still questioning how a 'don't tell anyone' clause can be legal.
  I thought the opposite. If the father told a ten year old "we won this settlement and made $80,000 but you mustn't tell anyone" and she goes on facebook, that's the father's fault. If the father told an 18 year old and she goes on Facebook, that's the daughter's fault.
52. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mysidia · 2014-03-02 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ethics aside, If they told her not to tell anyone about the settlement but she did anyway, is it really a good risk to have her collude in perjury?
  If my suspicions are correct: no perjury necessary. Their parents most likely revealed to her some facts of the case, long before a settlement agreement had been presented, and she figured out the settlement bent through information synthesis on her own, not from them sharing the confidential settlement documents or discussing the agreement.
53. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed...
  Reading the exact wording, we see that "Snay's father said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter..."
54. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement, nor what was told to the daughter, it's possible that it wasn't breached, and we'll never have enough information to determine it. Yes, the daughter coud always sabotage it by saying things she guesses, correct or otherwise, but now that she knows the trouble it causes, I think it is more likely she won't talk, not less.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
55. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by jader3rd · 2014-03-02 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  It would cost very little to operate or use in the modern age of computers.
  In other words, it costs too much.
56. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  But is it disallowed to tell them before the settlement, when the agreement comes into effect?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
57. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  More importantly, confidentiality agreements should be automatically null and void.
58. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. But how do you plan to make confidentiality agreements illegal? By passing into law a bill voted on by the politicians in office? Since when did they truly represent the interests of the individual constituents? Any company with enough money to pay punitive damages and continue unruly practices surely has enough money to fund an opposition campaign for such a bill.
  I think it's more likely that you'll need to figure out a way to live with the legality of confidentiality agreements. Not saying it's impossible though.
  Have to post AC because I know someone who :ahem: may be in a similar circumstance because of medications that caused a suicide. You might be surprised at the variety of companies opposed to passing this type of law.
59. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
60. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gIobaljustin · 2014-03-02 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  The last thing anyone needs is more legislation controlling what kinds of deals people are or are not allowed to make.
  Yeah, then things like this wouldn't happen, and people wouldn't be able to hide all the bad shit they did. How horrible.
  Actually, it sounds like this is the first thing we need in this case.
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
61. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
  Well, on the one hand, we have the fact that two courts have examined this issue, with lawyers presenting what are presumably their best arguments, and the courts have, at this point, decided that the NDA was violated. On the other hand, we have your entirely speculative hypothesis that what was said to the daughter didn't amount to a violation - a hypothesis that necessarily implies that Snay's lawyers were spectacularly incompetent, given the outcome so far.
  After due consideration, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is against your proposition that what was said to the daughter was too vague to violate the NDA.
62. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement, nor what was told to the daughter, it's possible that it wasn't breached, and we'll never have enough information to determine it. Yes, the daughter coud always sabotage it by saying things she guesses, correct or otherwise, but now that she knows the trouble it causes, I think it is more likely she won't talk, not less.
  You appear to miss the point. She wouldn't sabotage the ruse by guessing, but she could by letting slip the truth about what she was told.
63. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by DarkOx · 2014-03-02 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Good parenting is not sharing your financial affairs good or bad with your children.
  
  Really you think not sharing some details about things like house and car buying with children is good parenting? I sure have benefited from the knowledge I got by sitting in with my parents on those vary activities as teenager. My dad would even talk to me afterward about how he thought he might have negotiated better or why he decided to take a home equity loan to buy the car rather than just get an auto loan, for tax advantages etc. One of the things parents absolutely should do is try to pass on useful information.
  Even as kid I was made to understand there were times that were perhaps leaner and more uncertain than others and sometimes we had to make trades, like well we can't go out to eat as much because we are saving to take a trip, but neither of those things is more important than saving for future rainy days etc. You can share information with kids in age appropriate way.
  Honestly thinking like yours is why we probably have a nation of people up to their eyeballs in debt with barely any understanding of how money works.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
64. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  There was a case of a company privately prosecuting a man for stealing a pen from his work. He got a token fine while they got saddled with the costs.
65. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to miss the point. She could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing. There's no "proof" (at least provided in TFA) the NDA was breached.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
66. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  The last thing anyone needs is more legislation controlling what kinds of deals people are or are not allowed to make.
  I totally disagree with you, the sooner NDAs become illegal the better
  
  I often need confidentiality terms in settlement agreements for a variety of strategic reasons.
  If you could give some examples of reasons and reasoning behind them rather than just a bland statement this might be a bit more convincing.
67. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Maritz · 2014-03-02 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, Florida.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
68. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. But how do you plan to make confidentiality agreements illegal? By passing into law a bill voted on by the politicians in office? Since when did they truly represent the interests of the individual constituents? Any company with enough money to pay punitive damages and continue unruly practices surely has enough money to fund an opposition campaign for such a bill.
  The same thing could have been said against the minimum wage but that now exists which shows companies aren't all powerfull. Complain to your MP, if you don't tell them you want it changed it definitely wont change. Yes I know it will take a number of complaints and might not work but if people don't try there wont even be a chance of change.
69. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  It's probably more about letting people know that it's not that much to him. For some people earning a good chunk isn't enough, you have to tell strangers on the internet about it.
70. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed...
  Reading the exact wording, we see that "Snay's father said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter..."
  
  And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
  If we once again read the exact words of the article, we see that "Snay, however, immediately told his daughter that he’d settled and was happy with the results."
  That's not exactly a guess from a smile.
  If you are going to speculate about what happened, you should at least first familiarize yourself with what's already been said.
71. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  >This is their best bet: claim not to have told her about it.
  An entirely valid strategy...if you're an unethical sack of shit.
72. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by westlake · 2014-03-02 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I think "confidentiality for settlement" should be illegal anyways
  Get off your high horse.
  Taking a case to trial is an ordeal for both sides --- settling the matterquietly and privately out of court is how most of these stories end,
73. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by anagama · 2014-03-02 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Boston is not in Florida. The only exception in FL apparently is this:
  
  6. for educational purposes in 11 states
  Example: students in culinary school
  ...
  The law permits "the tasting of alcoholic beverages by a student who is at least 18 years of age" as part of a course at an accredited post-secondary educational institution, but the student may not "consume or imbibe" the alcohol.
  http://drinkingage.procon.org/...
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
74. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 12:25 · Score: 2
  
  If he's stupid enough to lose even more money by appealing such a clear-cut decision then I suspect age was the least of the reasons he was let go in the first place.
  To be fair, the fact that the circuit court ruled in his favor on the NDA violation issue suggests that it wasn't that clear-cut.
75. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
  When we were hunter gatherers, most of us were dead by that time.
  Beware of bullshit masquerading as attempts to extend childhood into the late 30's. I've heard the brain isn't mature until then.
76. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  So you know the NDA prevents them from saying that the matter was settled? Or did it pertain to the terms and naming the other party?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
77. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-03-02 12:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What kind of retards are people raising? I got to hear lots of interesting things when I was young, and I always understood that I wasn't supposed to talk about it to anyone, even if my parents were present.
  Because we don't allow people to grow up today.
  Whereas quite a few years back, people were married really early, and raising children not long after they hit puberty. Both my Grandparents were married in their early teens. I was 21, and my better half 17 when we were married in the mid 70's. Today, 30 is considered a little early by many.
  Now, people in their late 20's are considered not fully mature. We've artificially extended childhood until then.. One thing is for certain, children will remain children as long as you allow them. This college age girl had the mental maturity that a 12 year old would have had at one time.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
78. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to miss the point. She could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing. There's no "proof" (at least provided in TFA) the NDA was breached.
  Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. First you argue that the agreement could be saved by claiming that the daughter guessed the salient details of the agreement. Now you say "she could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing" (that's from the exact wording of your post.)
79. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Still can't sign contracts. Don't understand how she's held as capable of holding to terms she's not legally compelled to honor. Since she was the focus of the case, hard to see how she'd not be told. These "shut-up" congrats are vile; Scientology uses them to silence people they sue and harass. Then sometimes they keep harassing, but the victim is bound under insane penalties not to complain. And the non-ethics of business blames the victim for agreeing to terms.
80. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't like the non-disclose aspect of a settlement you can reject it. Why run like a ninny to the government to make something illegal just because some people don't do what's really be for them in their own circumstances? Thinking like yours about "[something] should be illegal" is why we're turning into a nanny state and why the Power-That-Be think that the man on the street hanging any real measure of freedom is a dangerous thing.
  
  I have no doubt that it's attitudes like yours that make assholes like Feinstein and Pelosi think that they're doing the right thing by deciding what's best for you.
81. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  She is not legally able to enter into a contract. So all remonstrations of her immaturity are irrelevant. She is not mature by law and obviously in deed.
82. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Was going to trial; case stops; parents have money and hug her. Doesn't take a precocious intellect to figure out what happened.
83. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Damned skippy.
84. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Don't need another expensive computer system. Just let the parties have copies and right to distribute.
85. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Libertarians tend to denigrate the victims and hallow legal contracts above common sense.
86. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  They would have to arrest everyone in the state.
87. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  They can be settled. But there should be no secrets. How else would we know if coercion occurs?
88. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  She could have inferred the settlement. Not difficult.
89. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Rich0 · 2014-03-02 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Don't need another expensive computer system. Just let the parties have copies and right to distribute.
  Sometimes it might be in the interest of both parties to keep the agreement secret, but not in the public interest.
  If people want to conspire against the public interest in a manner that isn't outright illegal I don't have a huge problem with that. However, they wouldn't be able to then turn around and ask the public for help with their partner double-crosses them.
  If you want the public to step in and settle your disputes with the force of law, then you need to do your part in helping out the public. That means everybody sees what your pricing is, or what your salary is, and so on.
90. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  You've no facts to use. You are speculating with prejudice. Courts are not rational actors.
91. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  She was the focus of the case. Not a block of wood.
92. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 14:07 · Score: 2
  
  Individuals vs gov or corps are not engaged in an equal contest and don't have the ability to refuse NDA terms as a practical matter - or such terms would NEVER be accepted. You have no pity for the weak vs the strong, yet you rage against the few who try to help the weak
93. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I'm claiming both. The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it. If the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached. Whether it has hasn't been proven.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
94. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  I got to hear lots of interesting things when I was young, and I always understood that I wasn't supposed to talk about it to anyone, even if my parents were present.
  
  Yeah... uh, the things the nice man told you not to tell your parents? Those are things you should have told your parents immediately about.
95. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. First you argue that the agreement could be saved by claiming that the daughter guessed the salient details of the agreement. Now you say "she could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing" (that's from the exact wording of your post.)
  
  Yes, I'm claiming both. The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it. If the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached. Whether it has hasn't been proven.
  Your latest position, "if the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached" implies that the strategy you proposed in your earlier posts will not work.:
  
  better is to coach her into a plausible story. "we didn't tell you any of the details. We told you that the matter was over, and we now had money to go to Europe. That you inferred that we won was not from us telling you that we won. If you mess this one up, we'll cut up your passport and you'll never go."
  http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
  You appear to think that when you contradict yourself, you can choose either position to make a point. In reality, logic dictates that your argument has collapsed - reductio ad absurdum, as logicians used to call it, appropriately enough in this case.
96. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. There has been no finding in court, but the judge agreed that it appeared to be breached because information was leaked. The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
97. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Just saying 'nope' isn't an argument. The fact remains that the logical contradiction in your position, that you are incapable of explaining away, means that your original claims have collapsed.
  The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
98. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Immerman · 2014-03-02 17:27 · Score: 2
  
  She isn't the one who broke the contract - her father is, by telling her. Moral of the story, if your children can't be trusted to exercise responsibility like an adult, don't put them in a situation where you will be screwed if they act like a child.
  It's not like keeping your mouth shut is terribly hard - kids usually figure out how to do it on their own about the time they start managing to successfully steal from the cookie jar. I can only assume that either the girl had really poor impulse control, or her parents did a really bad job of explaining just how important it was that this be kept secret. Either way her parents clearly screwed up at least as badly as she did.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
99. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to think that when you contradict yourself, you can choose either position to make a point.
  Your presumption about my position is incorrect. Rather than lecturing my position at me, perhaps you could ask for clarification, and thus speak fewer falsehoods.
  
  Just saying 'nope' isn't an argument.
  
  It's much faster than the alternative, don't you think?
  
  Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong. Any clarifications are met with arguments that your assumption is more accurate than the speaker's clarification.
  
  The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
  Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
  
  That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong. It just makes you dumb.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
100. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Darinbob · 2014-03-02 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  And for boys, it's 35.
101. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Camael · 2014-03-02 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  Don't understand how she's held as capable of holding to terms she's not legally compelled to honor.
  
  That is a misunderstanding. Her parents were the ones bound by the contractual obligation, which they broke by telling their daughter who then told the world.
  
  Since she was the focus of the case, hard to see how she'd not be told.
  
  Her parents should not have agreed to settlements which they could not honor/keep. They could have inserted into the settlement agreement a stipulation that their daughter be told.
  
  These "shut-up" congrats are vile; Scientology uses them to silence people they sue and harass. Then sometimes they keep harassing, but the victim is bound under insane penalties not to complain. And the non-ethics of business blames the victim for agreeing to terms.
  
  This point is irrelevant as this case has nothing to do with Scientology. If you sign a contract agreeing to do something, you are contractually (and most people agree honor-bound) to carry it out. Why agree to a contract with "insane penalties" in the first place ?
102. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by DigiShaman · 2014-03-02 18:24 · Score: 2
  
  What's truly frightening is that the brain does age. As you get older, it's no longer pliable at age 35 as it is when you're 18. That means if you're still acting like a "child" at 25, there's not a whole lot of time left to play catchup. Chances are, these people will act immature for the rest of their life.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
103. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong.
  I am responding to what you write, and if that's different from what you think, you need to get your thoughts and/or words better organized. For example, in the above quote, you seem to think that you are not contradicting yourself if the positions in question are in different posts. If that's not what you meant, then you made your statement unclear by bringing separate posts into it (and if it is what you meant, then you are simply wrong.)
  Here's just one example:
  
  The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
  
  The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
  Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
  It does not follow from my answer to your question that both judgments are correct. That would be a contradiction. In reality, at most one of these judgments is correct. Ultimately, it is by the rules of the court that the one from the higher court is chosen.
  As for the sentence "The same facts will be found to be two opposite things", that's just gibberish. No-one could divine with any degree of certainty what you thought that meant.
  Let me remind you of the original issue: Mysidia stated that the Snay's best option would have been to fabricate a story in which they never actually told the daughter about the settlement (implying that she guessed), and I pointed out that any such plan would have depended on the daughter never revealing that this was false. Your response was a non-sequitur on several grounds, not least because, as anyone who had read the exact wording of the article would know, and contrary to what you were assuming at that time, there is no doubt now that the daughter had been told that there was a favorable settlement, a fact that makes any speculation over whether she guessed both irrelevant and factually mistaken. The extent of uncertainty over what was said to the daughter was exaggerated in your mind, because you did not read the articles with sufficient diligence. You should understand that your personal ignorance is not evidence of a general lack of knowledge.
  Having been contradicted by the facts in this case, you attempted to rephrase your position, and managed to contradict yourself over whether the daughter's guessing of the facts would or would not be grounds for voiding the settlement. This is not particularly important, as it has already been established by Mr. Snay's own deposition that this is not what happened, and your arguments here are only part of a futile attempt to unsay what you had previously stated. It is, however, an indication of your predilection for invalid arguments.
  
  That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong...
  Here's another contradiction, all in one thread:
  "We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement'
  "The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it.'
  Your language here is refreshingly straightforward, so if the evident meaning is not what you meant, the problem is yours.
  
  ...It just makes you dumb.
  A loser's tacit admission that he has lost.
104. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  Exclusive contracts and confidentiality clauses should be illegal.
  More precisely, they should be unenforceable: contract law should refuse to recognise them. The distinction is worth noting because it demonstrates that this change would be a *decrease* in government intervention in the marketplace, not an increase.
105. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by JohnnyMindcrime · 2014-03-02 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree.
  Just because you have the right to free speech does not eliminate the need to sometimes shut the fuck up for the sake of someone else's sensibilities or because that's what an intelligent and sentient being would be able to work out is the right thing to do in the circumstances.
  Nothing annoys me more than people who do not accept personal responsibility - yes, you can do pretty much what you like in this world of ours but when you do it, be prepared to face the consequences.
  Peter
  
  --
  Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
106. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by martas · 2014-03-02 21:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And then people have the audacity to be surprised when teenagers "rebel" and go off the deep end by resorting to drugs, petty crime, and general disobedience. Here you have a human being whose brain is telling them "you are grown up; time to start doing shit on your own, so you're not a burden to the tribe; your mom has about 8 kids younger than you to feed and look after", but everything around them is designed to deprive them of responsibility and autonomy. School is run by fascists armed with zero tolerance policies, parents are no better because cable news has convinced them that giving a teenager an inch of freedom will result in them doing vodka enemas, and popular culture feeds them the image of the typical teen as an infantile, bumbling idiot, whose greatest possible accomplishment is successfully sneaking out of the house to go to a pool party where they can drink to the point of throwing up and touch a few genitals.
  
  --
  weinersmith
107. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  I'm new to this thread, and I am not a lawyer.
  My guess...
  The plaintiff may be willing to settle for less because they need the money now, not potentially months/years from now. So, to settle for less may be in his or her best interest. The defense, if powerful, may be willing to settle but doesn't want to deal with negative publicity, hence an NDA. If the defense weren't powerful, perhaps an NDA would be harder to come by.
108. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  Exclusive contracts and confidentiality clauses should be illegal.
  Should be why? You're proposing to materially change the fundament (contract law) on which the entire global commercial economy is based, and has been for hundreds of years. Do you have so much as ... a reason? The law isn't a 100-line program, you can't just throw it out and rewrite it all because you spotted a small bug. The law is more like a million-line program - you patch it and maybe if you get time you might rearchitect a small corner. You certainly don't get to rearchitect an entire area in complete ignorance of 99% of that area's use cases.
109. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 23:07 · Score: 0
  
  A court ruled that she violated the NDA, therefore a court was satisfied that there was proof. Not just proof, but sufficient proof.
110. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 23:17 · Score: 0
  
  They should have told her before the agreement was signed. "Once the agreement was signed, we did not tell anyone."
  No, they should have made sure the NDA clause wasn't so overly broad and easily abused. An NDA should be about the specific details of the suit (ie, whatever the damage was that resulted in the settlement), and about the specifics, such as the amount.
  "We sued, they settled, free ponies for everyone!" should never be enough to breach any reasonable NDA.
  Parents were stupid, or their lawyer was, for allowing such an unconscionable clause. Hey, sue the lawyer for malpractice.
111. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by da · 2014-03-03 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, it wasn't. It was in Florida, which is in the United States.
  
  --
  I reserve the right to be wrong.
112. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by mysidia · 2014-03-03 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Get off your high horse.
  Begone, Peon! Or ye shall be trampled.
  Taking a case to trial is an ordeal for both sides
  Which is precisely why they should be allowed to settle, BUT with no "confidentiality"; in other words, it should be mandatory that settlement terms shall be published in the public record, before the court can accept them.
113. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Rich0 · 2014-03-03 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Exclusive contracts and confidentiality clauses should be illegal.
  Should be why? You're proposing to materially change the fundament (contract law) on which the entire global commercial economy is based, and has been for hundreds of years. Do you have so much as ... a reason? The law isn't a 100-line program, you can't just throw it out and rewrite it all because you spotted a small bug. The law is more like a million-line program - you patch it and maybe if you get time you might rearchitect a small corner. You certainly don't get to rearchitect an entire area in complete ignorance of 99% of that area's use cases.
  Well, short of building a robot army I don't get to re-architect it at all. :)
  However, the reason is simple - confidentiality clauses allow people to do things which cause harm to others, and then only pay for the damages when somebody goes through a lot of trouble to sue them. Doing that is very difficult in the US, so for the most part people just deal with it. If all settlements were published, then it would be much harder for anybody to defend against a lawsuit if they keep repeating their actions.
  Exclusive contracts usually get combined with monopoly power to result in all kinds of anti-consumer behavior.
  My sense is that whatever benefits either type of contract provides to the public is greatly outweighed by their harm. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to uphold such terms. When two parties dispute a contract in court they're asking the public to step in and help them out, which gives the public the right to dictate what sorts of problems they're willing to help out with.
  If somebody wants the government to enforce their contract, the burden on them should be to prove how doing so improves the public welfare. The burden should not be on the government to prove that a contract causes harm.
114. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Rich0 · 2014-03-03 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Agree. When a party goes to court they're asking for government intervention. The court should only intervene when it serves the PUBLIC interest. Often public and private interest align (since the public is a collection of private individuals), so the concept of civil court is a good one. However, when this isn't the case the pubic shouldn't go shooting itself in the foot by enforcing contract terms that cause it harm.
115. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by jratcliffe · 2014-03-03 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  So, you'd be fine with everyone knowing how much you paid for your car? How about how much you're paying your doctor, and for what? These are all contracts, after all.
116. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by swillden · 2014-03-03 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Telling her wasn't the problem. Her telling everyone via Facebook is the problem.
  Legally, telling her was the problem. Unless she was a party to the contract (which, as a minor, she couldn't have been), then they had a contractual obligation to keep it from her. In practice, had she not spilled the beans there'd have been no impact of the breach, but it was still a breach.
  Of course, if the school district really wanted to keep it quiet, they should have contacted the family and demanded that she take the posting down and re-commit to silence. Because by exercising their right under the settlement to declare a breach and refuse payment, they ended up highlighting it on national news. Streisand effect. I wonder if law schools these days are including discussion of the Streisand effect, because lawyers really need to understand it and consider it when advising their clients. Publicity has always been an issue that has to be considered carefully, but the Internet has made it orders of magnitude more important.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
117. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by swillden · 2014-03-03 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  She was the focus of the case. Not a block of wood.
  She was the focus of his age discrimination case? He was 69 when they declined to renew his contract, and he sued for age discrimination. How did that involve his daughter?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
118. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by thewolfkin · 2014-03-03 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  The human brain doesn't fully develop until 25. We don't even hold teenagers responsible for their actions until they're 17-18.
  I didn't mean *full* maturity. I mean mature enough to understand that conversation.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
119. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by thewolfkin · 2014-03-03 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  >Since she was the focus of the case
  I didn't think she was the focus. I thought it was age discrimination against her father. She had nothing to do with it.
  Whatever we may think about these disclosure causes we can't say they aren't clear or new.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
120. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gweihir · 2014-03-03 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are you serious? The US has really gone down the drain to that degree?
  In that case, I apologize and restate as "In the second world country 'USA', $80k is a lot of money".
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
121. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  The stupid thing here is that we can make rulings to effectively hide the misdemeanors of corporations. What's we're saying is "Yeah, we did something bad. Yeah, we know it. Yeah, here's $80,000 so you don't tell anyone else we screwed up."
  They're essentially paying to remove all record of their misdeeds. What happened to the public record of justice? How do we know who the bad actors are if they just pay their way out of public scrutiny?
122. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by BasilBrush · 2014-03-03 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly thinking like yours is why we probably have a nation of people up to their eyeballs in debt with barely any understanding of how money works.
  In my entire life I've only ever taken out one loan. And I'm well into middle age now. So that theory isn't so good. And it's not that I've always been wealthy either. I've simply always lived within my means.
  It wasn't that I didn't get any financial education. But it was tailored towards MY financial affairs, not theirs. So I got pocket money, and that was that. If I wanted something that was more expensive than my pocket money I had to save, or do chores to earn the extra.
  I certainly remember my dad saying "never a borrower nor a lender be", without ever relating it to specifics in their financial affairs. Maybe that had the effect, or maybe it's simply that I resent paying interest. Hard to say.
  It may also be that my parents weren't materialistic, so I never felt the need to buy things to feel better about myself.
  
  Really you think not sharing some details about things like house and car buying with children is good parenting?
  Yes. It's the best parenting. Children shouldn't be worried about their parents finances.
123. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by BasilBrush · 2014-03-03 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Boston is not in Florida.
  She's at Boston College.
124. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Shirley+Marquez · 2014-03-03 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is the existence of the confidentiality requirement. Confidential legal agreements are evil. They should be prohibited.
125. Re: Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-03 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You've no facts to use. You are speculating with prejudice. Courts are not rational actors.
  On the contrary, it is a fact that Mr. Snay has stated in a deposition that he explicitly told his daughter.
  FWIW, I regard the incident as something like an unfortunate accident with disproportionately severe consequences, and I hope the family gets to keep the settlement, but I don't think the prospects look good. I would be interested in knowing what the outcome would have been if the daughter had actually guessed the existence and nature of the settlement. If you have any facts about how the circuit court came to its decision in favor of Mr. Snay, I would be interested.
126. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-03 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The NDA is irrelevant to the fact that you made a statement, about the exact wording of the article, that can unarguably be seen to be false, simply by reading the exact words of the article.
127. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by lucien86 · 2014-03-03 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  America has/ is a variable pitch civilisation. If you are rich it is the (best of the) first world, for the middle class its like the 2nd world (the old Soviet countries), for the poor its rather more like the third world. (No money = no/poor healthcare, no/poor education, poor food, no/poor housing, not much hope.)
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
128. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by lucien86 · 2014-03-03 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  But is it disallowed to tell them before the settlement, when the agreement comes into effect?
  Lawyers don't believe in physics so it probably is - or at least that's the way these things seem to be worded. How can you not tell someone if they already know? (Crazy!)
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
129. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by lucien86 · 2014-03-03 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  NDA's can apply to an agreement whether the person knows about it or not. (At least here in the UK) People have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution here for simply spreading gossip on Twitter that inadvertently crossed the line of some hidden NDA. The most pernicious kind of NDA puts knowledge of the agreement itself into the document so the parties are not even allowed to say that there is an NDA.
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
130. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Rich0 · 2014-03-03 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, you'd be fine with everyone knowing how much you paid for your car? How about how much you're paying your doctor, and for what? These are all contracts, after all.
  Yes. It would be the same as everybody else is paying anyway, since nobody is going to pay more for something than what the last person paid.
  You can already guess what somebody paid for their car by looking at their car and looking it up online.
  Oh, and people not knowing the costs of all the doctors in town is one of the many causes of the healthcare crisis. If that was all published then there would be a lot of downward pressure on prices.
131. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by AK+Marc · 2014-03-04 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  An NDA is a contract. A person can only be held to a contract they were party to. If the daughter knew there was a case, and the details of it, then was told "it's over" that didn't violate the contract, but the other party could assume that the NDA was breached because the daughter talked about things covered in the NDA. It'll take a full trial to figure it all out.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
132. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-04 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  NDA's can apply to an agreement whether the person knows about it or not. (At least here in the UK) People have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution here for simply spreading gossip on Twitter that inadvertently crossed the line of some hidden NDA. The most pernicious kind of NDA puts knowledge of the agreement itself into the document so the parties are not even allowed to say that there is an NDA.
  Are you referring to the so-called 'super injunctions'? They are not so much NDAs as they are gag orders - they are certainly not agreements when they are forced on you.
  The first amendment is supposed to stop that sort of nonsense in the USA.
133. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-04 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  The law is more like a million-line program - you patch it and maybe if you get time you might rearchitect a small corner.
  A better analogy would be the law is like a million-line program written by an unethical programming team, that by deliberately screwing up the program can create lifetime employment for itself. The verification engineers (i.e. the judges) are also members of the same team.
  Any impartial observer can clearly see this in the many contradictions, inconsistencies, ambiguous text, and unenforced laws that make up the legal system. Just examine the "no law" provision of the 1st Amendment, or the "may not be infringed" text of the 2nd, then think about the implications of having hundreds or thousands of laws that do exactly that which is prohibited.
  Similarly, we can see further examples problem in examining laws such as the Patriot Act, at hundreds of pages, or Obama Health Cares, at thousands of pages. No ethical legal professionals would have made these laws this complex. A law that affects ordinary people needs to be readable by ordinary people, as part of the public right to long term oversight over their government. Otherwise we get a government of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer, with legal professionals routinely taking steps to create artificial demand for the services of their profession.
  In this case, the whole program needs to be thrown out and massively revised. Re-architecting a small corner simply makes one an accessory to the existing unethical conduct that has made the current system a disaster.
  
  Well, short of building a robot army I don't get to re-architect it at all. :)
  If enough people start recognizing the ethics problems with the current system, and assert a right to ethical practice of law under the 9th Amendment (where even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when possible), then change is possible without a revolution.
  Rights retained by the people, after all, are retained by the people, and it is up to the people, not their robot armies, to assert these rights.
  The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s was to a significant degree a failure, because it failed to address the problems with the legal profession and the legal system that permitted the "separate but not actually equal" system to exist. Putting this in other words, the US legal system is extremely sick, and the Civil Rights movement treated some of the worst symptoms but failed to cure the disease (and we're seeing lots of new symptoms, such as violations of all manner of fundamental rights).
  We need to bring the Civil Rights movement back to life and finish the job.
  
  My sense is that whatever benefits either type of contract provides to the public is greatly outweighed by their harm. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to uphold such terms. When two parties dispute a contract in court they're asking the public to step in and help them out, which gives the public the right to dictate what sorts of problems they're willing to help out with.
  Here too there are serious ethics problems with US law. The problem is that contract law is enormously lucrative, so the legal profession wants to broaden the scope of contract law as much as possible. This creates a conflict of interest with their obligations to uphold the Bill of Rights. Thus, legitimate considerations such as you raise are simply ignored by the legal profession.
  We see examples of this problem in just about every single "shrink-wrap" contract for software: provisions that infringe fundamental rights (such as a provisions that prohibit reverse engineering, or reasonable transfers as an exercise of "fair use" rights) have become the norm.
  That this has been allowed to happen clearly shows the US legal profession's inability to act ethically in situations involving ethical of interest. It's a huge problem.
  James Madison delibera
134. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by gweihir · 2014-03-04 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  All too true from what I hear.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
135. Re:Teenagers will do stupid things? by Sabriel · 2014-03-04 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Since you mention strategic reasons, do you think society's strategy of allowing confidentiality terms in civil suits are an overall good or harm for society as a whole, and (if it's easily explainable) why?
  (I hope my wording isn't too awkward to convey what I'm trying to ask)
Parents will do stupid things by namgge · 2014-03-02 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is only one way to keep something secret; don't tell anyone. And anyone includes your teenage daughter.
1. Re:Parents will do stupid things by theshowmecanuck · 2014-03-02 06:06 · Score: 2
  
  Especially your teenage daughter.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
2. Re:Parents will do stupid things by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-03-02 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  So the old proverb reads "three can keep a secret if you kill your wife and your teenage daughter" nowadays? ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Secret Strategy. by rmdingler · 2014-03-02 05:48 · Score: 1

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.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Honestly, it seems justified. by schneidafunk · 2014-03-02 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by amiga3D · 2014-03-02 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by evilviper · 2014-03-02 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, this is a worthless story that was just posted here solely as fodder for people to come and complaint about anything Facebook-related.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
3. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-02 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
4. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by RockClimbingFool · 2014-03-02 06:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
5. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Why bring ethics and morals up in this? Are you a Communist and enemy of profits?
6. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by gnasher719 · 2014-03-02 06:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-02 07:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  " "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?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
8. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by allo · 2014-03-02 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  but its not her contract.
9. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Paying people off to keep the secret seems phenomenally immoral.
  The agreement was to keep the payment itself and not some misdeed a secret.
10. Re: Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I concur. Unbelievable this was approved to be posted. It's highly irrelevant to why i come to this website in the first place.
11. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit there are a lot of phenomenally stupid people on Slashdot today.
12. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by slew · 2014-03-02 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Make it illegal to keep secret the details of settlement agreements.
  The problem is that there is value in the secrecy and people that are wronged, often just want a pound of flesh, not justice. Basically, it's "blackmail" for victims inside a legal framework. If it were illegal (as normal blackmail is), it wouldn't exist. The legal frame work is the incentive for the corporations to give in (w/o it, there's no incentive).
  Given the cost of legal representation to extract a pound of flesh, eliminating this form of legalized reverse blackmail is probably just a recipe for big corporations to out lawyer people. If society instead wanted justice, it wouldn't be an issue.
  Not sure that outlawing settlements w/ confidentiality agreements is a good alternative, but it certainly could be an alternative, but with both sides agree? My guess is that not only probably not, the lawyers would lobby against it (since they get paid from settlement money).
  Sadly, that's the way the world really works.
13. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by asmkm22 · 2014-03-02 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Settlements are sometimes used that way, but I don't see what the problem is. Especially when you're talking about large companies with various branches and regions. It gives them a chance to avoid court expenses, compensate the wronged party, and not disrupt their stock or other business dealings as a result. That doesn't mean they are a "scumbag company" that was just trying to bribe someone into shutting up. And even if they were, go bitch to the person who took the settlement.
14. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by pepty · 2014-03-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  $80K + some $10k paychecks + $60K in attorneys fees Dad's lawyers might now get out of him instead of the school. The lesson may well be: "About that college fund and our eventually helping you out with a down payment on a house ..."
15. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by freeze128 · 2014-03-02 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  It would seem that would give the little guy the opportunity to stick it to the scumbag company. "$80,000 to keep quiet? I don't know.... It might be kinda hard (wink, wink) for that amount. It might take $120,000...."
16. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by pepty · 2014-03-02 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Changing the rules on confidentiality of settlements wouldn't change things that much, since the settlement itself would avoid discussing whatever happened to cause the lawsuit. It would essentially just allow successful plaintiffs to say "where there's $80k worth of smoke there might be fire".
  You could ban confidentiality agreements that cover discovery in civil suits as well. That would have some immediate positives. Lots of scumbag companies would settle as soon as a plaintiff asked the right discovery question and a judge said the company would have to comply. If they didn't, their dirty laundry would be in public no matter how the lawsuit went. On the flipside that would effectively end trade secrets and confidentiality in US companies: if you can come up with a legal argument for discovery whatever is discovered is now public. It would also end personal privacy during civil lawsuits, which in many cases would be a bad thing.
  Perhaps a rule that banned settlements which disallowed a plaintiff from discussing their own personal observations formed before the lawsuit was filed?
17. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  lawsuit settlements are more strongly binding than contracts
18. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by radarskiy · 2014-03-02 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  schneidafunk did not claim that the daughter violated the contract. schneidafunk claimed that the daughter made a stupid mistake, which was to provide unsolicited evidence that that the contract had been violated.
  The moral of the story: kids will snitch so keep them ignorant.
19. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  It would seem that would give the little guy the opportunity to stick it to the scumbag company. "$80,000 to keep quiet? I don't know.... It might be kinda hard (wink, wink) for that amount. It might take $120,000...."
  That's how they got to $80,000 (probably not explicitly, but it is implicit in the concept of negotiation.)
20. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, this is a worthless story that was just posted here solely as fodder for people to come and complaint about anything Facebook-related.
  At this point, only one of 182 comments say anything negative about Facebook itself.
21. Re: Honestly, it seems justified. by Capt.Albatross · 2014-03-02 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I concur. Unbelievable this was approved to be posted. It's highly irrelevant to why i come to this website in the first place.
  It's outrageous that Slashdot has failed to conform exactly with your wishes.
22. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by TapeCutter · 2014-03-02 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, you cannot hide a crime with a settlement, you can however hide the details of a civil dispute. Here's how you tell the difference, with a crime you call the cops and your lawyer, with a civil dispute you just call your lawyer. Also think about what you said "escalating fines", people aren't arrested for discrimination nor does it attract a fine / prison term. There is no "criminal" in a civil suit, just winners and losers.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
23. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by gnasher719 · 2014-03-02 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  So what do you know about the world? Fact is, in any single case where someone gets money through a settlement with confidential terms, if a settlement hadn't been possible because it is illegal, that someone would have had to find very expensive lawyers fighting there case, possibly against scumbags who would go to any lengths to avoid losing, all with a serious risk of getting slaughtered in court and being stuck with a bill that bankrupts them.
  
  Now it's all well and easy for you to decide that for a victim there should be no possibility to receive compensation through a secret settlement. It's all well and easy for you to decide that their choices are either to shut up and get nothing, or become legal superheroes. You're not in that situation. But fact is, if that father had decided not to enter into a secret settlement, that would have been his choice. If he wanted to be the avenger of illegally fired teachers, he could. You want to force him. That's completely disregarding how real life works.
24. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes like patent lawyers where pro software patents when asked (I suspect not all, but the goverment didn't mention any dissenters)
  Software patent legislation didn't happen so counter lobby your MP and point out the self interest motivating the lawyers concerned. Also make sure you ask for a reply so you have proof of what they said. This way if they then say something else in the house or to journalists be sure to point it out to your local paper and also send a letter to the local party asking them for comment. MPs do have to be voted in and really can become jittery if enough constituents start kicking up a fuss, as can their parties.
25. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  gets money through a settlement with confidential terms, if a settlement hadn't been possible because it is illegal, that someone would have had to find very expensive lawyer
  Thats just FUD. At the moment people might try and play hardball at the moment if you refuse to sign an NDA but if they where illegal I doubt there would be a difference in settlement rates. In fact I'd contest they'd go up as companies would have a harder time hiding their illegalities due to previous examples of settlements being available. Either that or they'd actually clean up their acts so that settlements are unnecessary in the first place (ie they'd obey the law).
26. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't mean they are a "scumbag company"
  It pretty much does as they've been breaking the law
27. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  It is evidence that she knew this privileged information. It has then been assumed she learnt it due to her parents violating the contract.
28. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Arker · 2014-03-02 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, we dont know, which is why I have to agree with other posters that secret settlements should probably not be allowed/enforceable to begin with. Ultimately if the courts refused to enforce such clauses they would quit being used, to everyones ultimate advantage.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
29. Re: Honestly, it seems justified. by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  She wasn't a party. She could have deduced the settlement easily. How many people not included in the ND are covered? The world?
30. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by PapayaSF · 2014-03-02 15:06 · Score: 2
  
  You don't seem to quite understand how the world works.
  I don't think you do. A civil settlement is compromise, often in many parts. Neither side gets everything they want. A confidentiality agreement is one of those potential parts. If you remove that option, the parties will simply compromise in other ways. Most likely, it means a company would offer a smaller settlement, and be more willing to go to trial.
  Also, you seem to assume that anyone suing a company is in the right, and every company in the wrong. Not so.
  
  --
  Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
31. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by StikyPad · 2014-03-02 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  It does in the US. Parents aren't responsible for criminal activities of their children, and minors cannot engage in contracts. Don't know how things work in the UK, but it would seem there are differences.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
32. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by tlhIngan · 2014-03-02 16:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Make it illegal to keep secret the details of settlement agreements.
  The problem is that there is value in the secrecy and people that are wronged, often just want a pound of flesh, not justice. Basically, it's "blackmail" for victims inside a legal framework. If it were illegal (as normal blackmail is), it wouldn't exist. The legal frame work is the incentive for the corporations to give in (w/o it, there's no incentive).
  Given the cost of legal representation to extract a pound of flesh, eliminating this form of legalized reverse blackmail is probably just a recipe for big corporations to out lawyer people. If society instead wanted justice, it wouldn't be an issue.
  Not sure that outlawing settlements w/ confidentiality agreements is a good alternative, but it certainly could be an alternative, but with both sides agree? My guess is that not only probably not, the lawyers would lobby against it (since they get paid from settlement money).
  Actually, there's a third path. It's to negotiate a non-confidentiality clause into the settlement.
  Basically the wronged party brings suit to the wronger. The two get together and hammer out a settlement (this is normal - most lawsuits are settled rather than go through the courts). One party wants confidentiality and they offer something for it. The other party is free to negotiate terms that don't include it, but then they need to give something up.
  Heck, perhaps they tried for it - and got a point where it was $20K if you don't want confidentiality, $80k if you do. Yes, it's a give-and-take, and for most people, that pound of flesh that's bigger is what they want.
  $60k to keep my mouth shut? Where's that dotted line?!
33. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  He said nothing about crime, he said "illegal behaviour".
  A civil suit also falls under illegal behaviour. A law was broken. Usually contract law. If there is no illegal behaviour, you don't get a settlement. You get the case thrown out.
  Thus, non disclosure clauses in settlements do hide illegal behaviour. If there was no illegal behaviour, there would be no settlement, and if there was nothing to hide, there wouldn't be a non disclosure clause.
34. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  A settlement is a way of avoiding court. People take them, even though they could get more money from a court. You aren't forced to accept one that includes a confidentiality agreement. So why do people accept them? Maybe because they couldn't actually afford to take the matter as far as a court? (Seriously? You couldn't figure that out?) Your proposal reduces the degrees of freedom of the injured party in the case. It's idiotic.
35. Re: Honestly, it seems justified. by DaveV1.0 · 2014-03-03 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  What do you expect from Samzenpus? If you want to know the "editor's" personal opinions, just look at the stories and the spin in the stories of their approval history
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
36. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by allo · 2014-03-03 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Even if this is illegal, they should have kept silent. Then they must prove, that she learned about it by her father talking about it. And thats rather hard to prove.
37. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-03 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't think you do."
  You could have stopped at "You don't think".
  
  "Also, you seem to assume that anyone suing a company is in the right, and every company in the wrong. Not so."
  I make no such assumption. You are, instead, making the assumption that my reference to a common situation is a suggestion that it is the only one. Like I said: You could have stopped your post at the word "think".
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
38. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  EPIC FAIL
39. Re:Honestly, it seems justified. by slew · 2014-03-03 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  If the value of confidentiality is higher than damages a single party suffers (which I would argue is almost always the case in these types of discrimination cases), then your proposed third path is the null set.
  It would be kind of silly for the school to offer that you need to pay $100K to the school if you don't want to keep it confidential, and you get $80k if you keep it confidential, because the expected probability of the school getting $100K from the plaintiff is essentially zero.
  The end result is the same: you get nothing from us if you don't want to keep it confidential (essentially no deal and you pay $100K to lawyers), and $80k if you keep it confidential.
This quote says it all by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 05:56 · Score: 0, Insightful

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 by roc97007 · 2014-03-02 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:keep your teen in the loop by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  The best way is really to keep your own daughters in the dark. The government does it, so it's OK.
2. Re:keep your teen in the loop by Opportunist · 2014-03-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  In this day and age, it's more fitting to say "the government does it, so it's likely NOT ok"...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:keep your teen in the loop by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-03-02 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Parent: "Do not, under ANY circumstance, tell anyone about this. It is confidential. We have to pay the money back if you say anything."
  Child: "Understood"
  Parent: "You told people"
  Child: "No, I just posted on FaceBook that Gulliver was paying for our vacation. I didn't say how much or why or any of that stuff you said was confidential. I didn't actually *tell* anyone. The only people on my FaceBook are my friends, family, every guy I thought was cute once, and the pages for Love Pink and weed dispensaries and every company that gave me free stuff for a Like."
  Parent: "I'm selling you into slavery so you can learn how the world works."
  It's not the adult's fault for not covering every possible scenario to make sure the child understands. It's the parents' fault for being wrong about what their child understands. Huge difference, because in one case you put the responsibility of preserving a legal agreement in the hands of the child who did not and cannot sign an agreement, and in the other it's in the hands of the adult who did sign it.
4. Re:keep your teen in the loop by Vitriol+Angst · 2014-03-02 13:24 · Score: 2
  
  I can see that this has some logic to it.
  If however we take it a bit further, it means that parents who leave guns available to kids who are not responsible to wield them are guilty of murder should something bad happen.
  Some people get the warm fuzzies over confidentiality agreements. I can see them in some cases such as trade secrets, but protecting the guilty isn't something that keeps me awake at night.
  
  --
  >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
5. Re: keep your teen in the loop by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  You assume she did not simply figure it out on her own.
Mama and Papa Snay? by Nutria · 2014-03-02 06:01 · Score: 1

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...

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
1. Re:Mama and Papa Snay? by Opportunist · 2014-03-02 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  If I were her stepfather, she'd be sleeping with her step-grandmother tonight.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Mama and Papa Snay? by ShaunC · 2014-03-02 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  If I were her stepfather, she'd be sleeping with me tonight. $80K should buy a lot of "comfort!"
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
serves them right by shentino · 2014-03-02 06:02 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:serves them right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  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.
2. Re:serves them right by mysidia · 2014-03-02 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:serves them right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:serves them right by RubberDogBone · 2014-03-02 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Breach and also defamation or slander as these accusations about discrimination were never actually put to a trial. The parties merely agreed to settle. With the settlement gone, and no trial, it's back to his word against theirs and clearly they have suffered some damages to their reputation in all this breach.
  The only thing keeping this from being a financial bloodbath for this family is how badly the school wants to eat them alive, or not.
  
  --
  Sig for hire.
5. Re:serves them right by Kijori · 2014-03-03 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Putting my lawyer's hat on, I think that this is pretty unlikely. It's generally the case that if you provide for liquidated damages (which just means an upfront statement of the damages in the contract - here, the $80k) then you can't then sue for more if the damage proves to be more serious than you anticipated.
Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. by mmell · 2014-03-02 06:03 · Score: 4, Funny

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?
1. Re:Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. by shentino · 2014-03-02 07:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  maybe I lack the subtlety of this post, still, why is it marked as 'Funny'?
3. Re:Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami Florida. by Vitriol+Angst · 2014-03-02 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  There seems to be this punishment-oriented culture going on here. Yes the daughter did a bit of blabbermouthing -- and how does that stack against the willful negligence of what the school did to deserve the punitive damages?
  Gag clauses to protect scum bags who are found guilty is at issue here. The idea of "secret knowledge" is very foreign to me -- unless you harm the innocent.
  Children should have a protection of privacy -- not companies.
  
  --
  >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Contracts by Martz · 2014-03-02 06:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Contracts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Father was running around telling people how he "stuck it to the man". Daughter happened to get the frist post on FB.
2. Re:Contracts by Nutria · 2014-03-02 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Or they could have told her to keep her God damned trap shut for once in her life.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
3. Re:Contracts by mysidia · 2014-03-02 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  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)
4. Re:Contracts by SpaceLifeForm · 2014-03-02 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
5. Re:Contracts by asmkm22 · 2014-03-02 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Contracts by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-03-02 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  Or they could have told her to keep her God damned trap shut for once in her life.
  The parents are to blame. They revealed a secret they were contracted to keep. Their daughter is still growing up (faster at this point, I'll bet), but they're supposed to be setting an example.
7. Re:Contracts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Bank statements should be locked up; don't give your daughter access to them"
  Hahahahaha. Oh wait you're serious....
  I guess your kids never have emergency credit cards, has never had to produce bank statements to acquire financial aid or apply for college or high school. They never had to learn what or how their taxes were being filed or carry any documents that identified their medical insurance. They never had to apply for part time work or get a social security number or get car insurance when they learned to drive (which would require your SSN btw). You never had to cosign anything for them. They have no accounts where they are the beneficiary and receive mail addressed to them. Yes... It's best to never expose kids to these concepts at a young age so they grow up as well adjusted, responsible members of society, even at the risk of them occasionally screwing up - like misunderstanding the finer points of a lengthy legal contract signed between their parents and some counterparty that fucked them over. Yes... it's better to lock up basic documents like bank statements and phone bills from them so they can wait until they've get their own job or go off to college (if you ever let them leave) to figure out the basics. Oh and definitely remember to never ever let your kid ever use your computer even for a second for fear of accidentally using a long-term cookie. Screen lock your machine and treat your kids with absolute suspicion. Make sure to not show them how much things cost in real life or how a mortgage works or how medical bills work.
  And people wonder why college kids make stupid decisions about student loans and behave like thoroughly irresponsible shits. My parents have let me play with their wallets or read their statements all the time. My dad would let me play in his filing cabinet under the understanding that I couldn't damage or misplace anything in it. If I needed to look at something, I just had to ask him. I first heard of shares and dividends when I was 12 or 13 as he was filing was paper receipts for company share bonuses that had gotten. I couldn't understand what the various numbers were but I started learning. I understood elementary accounting principles (credit/debit/income/expense) a few years later. They aren't hard concepts if you're exposed to it in a real manner. If where your money comes from and where it goes to is a topic that is taboo the discuss with your daughter, then god save you.
  In this particular case - I believe the parents were stupid for not having sensibly explained all the implications of the deal to their daughter or explaining the need for secrecy. They could have not mentioned it to her under the assumption that she wouldn't really find out the details - what teenager deliberately reads through bank documents without encouragement? Either that or they should have exempted her daughter from the deal. There was a similar controversy in some other case where a settlement demanded that parents and their child (very young) would be indefinitely gagged from discussing a settlement involving some medical issue. It was weird because folks in legal circles didn't believe parents should have the right to hand our perpetual rights of their kids just because they have guardianship.
8. Re:Contracts by pepty · 2014-03-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  That strategy raises the stakes to perjury and lots of depositions for the whole family to enjoy.
9. Re:Contracts by Nutria · 2014-03-02 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'd tell my kids, but with the strict warning about the dire consequences of breaking the agreement.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
10. Re:Contracts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  That's great advice that we would all do well to remember. Lie to your kids. To avoid problems in the future. Gotcha.
  </sarcasm>
11. Re:Contracts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  Are you actually serious? There is no such thing as a secret between family members. At least, not in a functional family. You tell me something in confidence, you can assume my wife and kids are going to be told or are going to find out (if it has a bearing on them, at least). That's how it works and if you don't like it confide in someone else. What example would you have them set their kids instead? That they should consider vague societal commitments more important than concrete family commitments?
  The problem here is the Dad signing a contract which he had no intention whatsoever of honouring. He should have had it edited to extend confidence to immediate family.
But... by StripedCow · 2014-03-02 06:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  While Schmidt's statement was dumb, in this case keeping the secret was actually wrong. The school demonstrated ageism and tried to cover it up. Ageism and any discrimination should always be public knowledge. It only seems more of an affront that an institution of learning would try and pull this.
What? by Murdoch5 · 2014-03-02 06:22 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  But he told someone... the girl, who then told the world.
2. Re:What? by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-02 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  He said something to the daughter.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
3. Re:What? by Fishchip · 2014-03-02 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:What? by Overzeetop · 2014-03-02 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  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.
6. Re:What? by LandDolphin · 2014-03-02 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  He told his daughter.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
7. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · 2014-03-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  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.
9. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · 2014-03-02 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  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.
10. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · 2014-03-02 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  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.
11. Re:What? by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-02 06:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
12. Re:What? by shentino · 2014-03-02 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  The daughter didn't breach anything, she just got his dad busted for telling HER about it.
13. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · 2014-03-02 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:What? by allo · 2014-03-02 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  is it legal to forbid someone to speak about something with his relatives?
15. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · 2014-03-02 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  I agree
16. Re:What? by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-02 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Didn't you RTFA?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
17. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  The FATHER violated the contract you stupid motherfucker!
18. Re:What? by allo · 2014-03-02 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  did you?
19. Re:What? by gnasher719 · 2014-03-02 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  is it legal to forbid someone to speak about something with his relatives?
  There are cases where it is legal, without me even agreeing to it. For example, if I'm the juror in a court case. Or if I'm a doctor, I'm not allowed to discuss your sexually transmitted diseases with my relatives.
  
  Here the question is: Can a contract be legal if it includes some provision not to talk about the contract,? Sure it can.
20. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  > the father told the daughter
  And the contract is broken right there. Open and shut case.
21. Re:What? by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-02 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  You're kidding me, right? Of course I didn't. Did you forget where you are?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
22. Re:What? by dk20 · 2014-03-02 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  So what are you saying exactly? She's not being held to any standard the father is. The daughter doesnt need a contract or anything, she only confirms the father told somone. Her choosing to post to everyone else on FB only made matters worse. You acknowledge the father told the daughter, since the contract had a confidentially clause this violated the conditions.
23. Re:What? by TerraFrost · 2014-03-02 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  FTA:
  "Attorneys say it's unlikely confiding in Dana Snay would have jeopardized the settlement — it was the facebook post that did them in."
24. Re:What? by allo · 2014-03-03 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  There are some laws, for example for doctors and lawyers. But there should be no contract, where you can be forced not to speak with your family about something.
25. Re:What? by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-03-03 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. That's what I said. Had they only told their daughter, even though they were in violation it would not have likely been an issue, as nobody would know. It was when she posted to Facebook that it became apparent to the world that the terms were violated; said violation being the telling of the daughter, and then the subsequent fallout of that. You are mistakenly interpreting that to say "Nobody really knows if it was wrong to tell the daughter." That's not what that sentence means.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Why'd he sign the agreement? by Yaotzin · 2014-03-02 06:23 · Score: 1

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.

--
Error: No error occurred
1. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by Fishchip · 2014-03-02 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
2. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  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.
3. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by gnasher719 · 2014-03-02 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  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?
5. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  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?
  I wouldn't say it's obvious that they weren't sure about their chances. I think it's more likely that they figured that a total of $150K (80K settlement + 60K opposing counsel fees + 10K back pay) was less than they'd end up paying even if they won the suit. Going to court isn't cheap, even when your case is bulletproof.
6. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by ruir · 2014-03-02 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Court battles are costly and lengthy. You have to pay your lawyers and judges also dont see in a favourable light people who doesnt want to accept out-of-court agreements when they are offered. I also accepted one agreement in the past when I was quite sure I had a solid case, and the case of the adversary was a joke. Actually I knew if I went ahead it would be a completely circus...but then read what I wrote above.
7. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by Todd+Knarr · 2014-03-02 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you reject a settlement that would've given you what you would've won if you prevailed in court, judges tend to take a very dim view of you wasting their time. And they aren't even very amenable to arguments like "The settlement would've covered my costs, but it doesn't have the plaintiff plainly saying I didn't do what they accused me of. I want that admission. I want my name cleared of the accusations made against me.". You have to show irreparable harm from that lack, and that's hard to do before the harm's actually happened.
8. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by jratcliffe · 2014-03-03 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Remember, he settled too. If he had been that sure of his chances of success (and/or that he'd get a lot more if he went to trial), he wouldn't have.
9. Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? by Yaotzin · 2014-03-03 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely, that's a fair point. I see I was a bit frivolous with my usage of 'obviously', but I've the notion that a settlement is to save time and money instead of just going through the motions in court. This is generally a good thing. This whole NDA changes everything though, it's a low blow. While I now realise the economical reasons for accepting such an offer, the moral implications are dubious. Paying him off communicates to me that Gulliver was in the wrong and that they're (sort of) sorry. Putting a gag on the man mucks it up completely, saying rather that they realised that they did wrong but that they're NOT sorry. In the end he lost his money since the agreement was voided, all fair, but the agreement should never have included a non-disclosure clause. Gulliver, if they were honest, should never have put it on the table and the man should never have agreed to it. The lawsuit shouldn't have been about the money, but about fair compensation. IMHO, being told to take the money and shut up is not fair compensation. So in accepting, he acknowledged it was about the money and Gulliver, by proposing, acknowledged they didn't care about fair compensation. Now both sides look like shit and so, nothing was accomplished. Just my $.02.
  
  --
  Error: No error occurred
Are you Lost? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:27 · Score: 0

Not sure this is the place for a Facebook fanboi.
1200 Facebook friends... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:36 · Score: 0

How many real friends?
So because an underage minor... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:37 · Score: 0

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....
1. Re:So because an underage minor... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  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.
2. Re:So because an underage minor... by shentino · 2014-03-02 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:So because an underage minor... by EmagGeek · 2014-03-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  The dad broke the confidentiality agreement by telling his daughter about it. Her post was just incontrovertible evidence that he did it.
4. Re:So because an underage minor... by mark-t · 2014-03-02 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the dad *IS* permitted within the confidentiality agreement to disclose such information to his own family, or anyone else residing permanently in his household, because matters of family income directly affect their well being. He is also, of course, obligated to disclose the amount to the IRS. What they are categorically *NOT* allowed to do is publicize that the settlement occurred or the amount, however. The dad should have made that point clear with his family when bringing the matter up. If he did tell them and the daughter did it anyways, then she's going to have to feel guilty about it because it cost them the very thing that she bragged about. The only way the dad may have done something wrong here is if he didn't actually mention that this was supposed to be kept fairly secret, or, possibly if he had any reason to previously suspect that his daughter would want to brag about it in the first place would have been legitimate reason to not mention it to her as well. But simply telling his family if he had no reason to suspect that any of them would say anything to anyone else is categorically *NOT* a confidentiality breach when the matter does directly affect them (as household income would).
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:So because an underage minor... by mark-t · 2014-03-02 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  You may want to read up on confidentiality agreements with regards to household income. It is not a breach of confidentiality to disclose such amounts to other people who are within the same household and family, since it directly affects them. The government is further allowed to be informed of all of your income regardless. A person still bears the burden of making sure that anyone he or she *does* tell, however, does not further publicize the matter... and this is how the confidentiality agreement was broken... whether it was by either not telling his daughter that she shouldn't be telling anyone else, or whether it was by not realizing that his daughter would have been so inclined to have publicized it.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
6. Re:So because an underage minor... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Britain is probably different, but In the US, confidentiality agreements do not supersede spousal privilege, or other privileged communications between employee and attorney, accountant, and other professionals where disclosure is required in order for the employee to comply with the Law. However, nothing grants such privilege between parent and child, since there is no scenario in which the child must necessarily know the information.
  In the US, the father would clearly be in breach of the agreement for telling his children.
7. Re:So because an underage minor... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  I sort of get it. The NDA was meant to save face for the company, even tho it violated a man's civil rights. The daughter caused "humiliation" to the co's image and cost the dad his settlement. It's a crazy provision though, to be forbidden to mention something so financially important to a family member.
8. Re:So because an underage minor... by mark-t · 2014-03-02 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  In general, yes, you are correct... but in matters concerning household income, it differs considerably. You are right that there is no scenario under which a child absolutely must know the information, but disclosing it to a child who is part of the household is not, by itself, considered a breach of the confidentiality... the child must further disclose the information to another person who was not implicitly authorized to know about it before the confidentiality agreement can be considered violated.
  The dad erred when (i imagine) that it probably never occurred to him that his child would mention it to anyone else (or worse, brag about it publicly) so it's still ultimately his fault from a legal standpoint. Since the teen thought it was a cool thing to brag about, it's clear that the daughter placed some value upon it, so the fact that her actions have cost their family the very thing that she bragged about may ultimately end up affecting the daughter far more significantly than her dad.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
and then we will need some kind of basic income by Joe_Dragon · 2014-03-02 06:47 · Score: 1

and then we will need some kind of basic income for all the people who get push out of work.
1. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by tepples · 2014-03-02 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by Joe_Dragon · 2014-03-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  During the Jim Crow era in the United States, having a "no colored" section meant that the employer also had to have a "colored only" section staffed by "colored" folk (separate but equal was the mantra). During the Jim Crow era in the United States, having a "no smoking" section was unheard of. Mind you, I don't want either portion to return. But I do like to correct wrong beliefs on the Internet.
4. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by pepty · 2014-03-02 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  Please don't read his journal before replying to him. After all, he can't force you to and he's not holding a gun to your head.
5. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Minimum wage should not exist
  Yes it should. There as much info added as in your comment. No I can't see any sigs or other things in your comment.
  
  Nobody can force anybody to do anything, unless it is done through government threat of violence.
  Hypnotism? The threat of violence doesn't 'force' more than the threat of pennery so either work as well as each other.
  
  Again, nobody is holding a gun to your head except government
  I've never had a gun held against my head by a goverment employee but I've had individuals attack me with weapons so this seems to be a load of bollocks
6. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by BasilBrush · 2014-03-02 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Minimum wage should not exist
  The evidence is that it should. Conservatives and libertarians such as you warned that introducing a minimum wage in the UK would lead to mass unemployment, and various industries being decimated. And they were wrong. In the years following the introduction of the minimum wage unemployment fell and no industry was decimated.
  Everybody won, employees and employers alike.
7. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by _Sharp'r_ · 2014-03-02 15:02 · Score: 2
  
  Your facts seem to be less than accurate. For example, in the UK, the minimum wage for 16-17 year olds was set in 2004 and started increasing in 2006. Mysteriously, the unemployment rate for 16-17 year olds in the UK started heading up right at the same time until it almost doubled. Probably just a coincidence, right?
  Increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among those who are less valuable to an employer than the minimum wage. They work the same way as every other law setting a price floor. Price floors doesn't exactly have controversial effects.
  
  --
  The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
8. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by AK+Marc · 2014-03-02 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  These laws are taxes, nothing else. They reduce economic activity not increase it.
  You say that like a voluntary tax on racist bigots is a bad thing.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
9. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by AmiMoJo · 2014-03-03 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  That article is hilarious. Their "mystery event" happened after unemployment started to rise, proving that it wasn't the case. The whole thing is based on a shitty blog post called "minimum wage derp", and actually explains that if anything the cause was likely more young migrants coming to the UK to do those low wage, low skill jobs. The figures don't even seem to be cited anywhere.
  Working for minimum wage or below in the UK isn't really any better than not working. The government still pays you benefits to make up for the fact that you can't live on your wages, so there is little incentive for the government to support such jobs. It's no good just getting everyone into any old job, they need to have reasonable pay too or it just drags everyone down.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Do the UK minimum wage rules have a maximum age for that minimum wage?
11. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by BasilBrush · 2014-03-03 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  My facts are absolutely accurate, I lived through it, and even the Conservative opposition party hasn't denied it. You are attempting to cherry pick by considering only a minority of ill-educated teens, as against the entire rest of the workforce. And by only considering the 4 years 2004-2008, rather than the 9 years 1999-2008. (We know why all employment fell from 2008 - the bankers.)
  For 18s and over the minimum wage came into effect in 1999, and there followed a decade of increased employment.
  
  Increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among those who are less valuable to an employer than the minimum wage. They work the same way as every other law setting a price floor. Price floors doesn't exactly have controversial effects.
  That is your belief. But again it is flatly contradicted by the increased employment in the UK in the decade after the introduction of the minimum wage.
  What you don't seem to understand is that a rising minimum wage increases buying ability, and thus stimulates the economy. Heck, in the USA, one of the things Congress did to address the recession was to issue everyone with checks, and told them to spend them rather than save. A rational minimum wage is far more sensible and sustainable than panic injections of cash to the consumers.
12. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by _Sharp'r_ · 2014-03-03 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'll admit that I'm more familiar with the minimum wage history and practice in the U.S. than in the UK. Just happened to read that article the same day and it seems very topical.
  However, the theory isn't that minimum wage causes unemployment for everyone. The vast majority already make more than the minimum wage, so other than increasing their costs for minimum-wage supplied products and services (which is a real wage decrease, come to think of it). Economic theory states that the impact on people who currently make the new minimum wage or lower is that they find it more difficult to get and/or keep employment, because at the margin, some of them become no longer worth employing for what they cost.
  
  --
  The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
13. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by BasilBrush · 2014-03-04 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Economic theory states
  You say this as if there's only one school of thought in Economics. But there isn't. Your statement of the theory is a right wing one, and was expounded by the Conservatives and the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) before the minimum wage came in. And equally there were economists on the left who said that wasn't so, and that increasing the minimum wage had a positive effect on the economy. The latter were proved correct.
  
  because at the margin, some of them become no longer worth employing for what they cost.
  Most people on the low wages are not there because the employers can't pay them more, nor because they don't make their employers more than that. They are there because the employers can get away with it because there's not a shortage of unskilled employees. Take for example McDonalds paying minimum wages, yet making $billions of profits. When they are forced to pay more, they don't lose any staff because they are all required. However the better paid staff go out and spend their money in other stores, thus stimulating the economy for all, including McDonalds.
14. Re:and then we will need some kind of basic income by _Sharp'r_ · 2014-03-04 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  They are there because the employers can get away with it because there's not a shortage of unskilled employees.
  And when you require their employer to increase the wage for their position, the employer will now hire a more qualified individual instead, since they have to pay for that anyway, leaving the less skilled employee (who is supposedly being helped) eventually out in the cold.
  If your employer was suddenly required to pay 50% more in salary for your current position, do you think you'd keep your job long-term against other, more qualified people who would suddenly want that position as opposed to their old one? It all shakes out similarly in the end for those who used to make under the new minimum wage, typically the most needy among us who already have some of the fewest options.
  
  --
  The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Confidentiality agreements suck by seebs · 2014-03-02 06:50 · Score: 1

And this is a big part of why.

--
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
1. Re:Confidentiality agreements suck by asmkm22 · 2014-03-02 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  What is a big part why? Because it limits the winner's ability to act like a spoiled asshole, as well as disclosing the actual amount of money involved?
2. Re:Confidentiality agreements suck by John.Banister · 2014-03-03 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  It could be possible to make them go away. Set up a web page that publishes whatever anyone sends and forgets the source. It'll be too full of crap for most people to ever want to read it, but once the stuff bound by the confidentiality agreement is there, all those formerly bound have plausible denyability for having been the one to reveal it. It'd be sort of like wikileaks without a review or filtering process. The only problem would be that you'd probably need to have the server functioning autonomously and in orbit to prevent governments from shutting it down.
This shouldn't be on slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:04 · Score: 0, Troll

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:07 · Score: 0

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.
"Other valuable consideration" loophole by tepples · 2014-03-02 07:13 · Score: 1

because the parties settled to this (insert settlement) the case is dismissed
...where "this" refers to one dollar and other valuable consideration.
Guess what by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:29 · Score: 0

You're not going to Europe. SUCK IT.
Stupid Parents have Stupid Kids by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:32 · Score: 1

... and that's all I have to say about that.
On a completely unrelated topic... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Gulliver's facebook page now also says "SUCK IT!"
Had the dad told his daughter that she couldn't... by mark-t · 2014-03-02 07:54 · Score: 1

... tell anyone? Because if not, she can't be faulted for this... You can't blame somebody for mentioning something that is supposedly under NDA when you haven't told them that it was.
Many things that are under NDA you cannot even discuss with your immediate family anyways, but for things that would affect or concern them, such as a legal settlement that they receive the benefits of, the dad should have made it very clear that they weren't really allowed to talk about it to anyone.... ever, because that was a condition of receiving it in the first place, and they go back on that, then they will have to give it back.
Even a bragging teen will understand that much.
If, however, he had told his daughter and his daughter went and did it anyways, well... then, the daughter is going to have to live with feelings of guilt for however long it takes for her to get over the fact that bragging about it ended up costing them the very thing she was bragging about.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Father should sue now. by Nyder · 2014-03-02 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Since the original agreement was not to sue and not to say something, and that got broken, nothing to keep him from taking them to court and suing over the original thing. Might even work to their favor. "Well your honor, they were going to pay us off, but then didn't when word of it got leaked out via facebook."
As for the daughter, she's 19, time for her to leave the nest and earn her own living.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:Father should sue now. by ShaunC · 2014-03-02 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  nothing to keep him from taking them to court and suing over the original thing
  I kinda doubt this, especially considering the fact that he's the one who broke the contract. Any lawyers around?
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
2. Re:Father should sue now. by Idarubicin · 2014-03-02 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  ...nothing to keep him from taking them to court and suing over the original thing. Might even work to their favor. "Well your honor, they were going to pay us off, but then didn't when word of it got leaked out via facebook."
  Suuuuuuure....because a judge is definitely going to want to incentivize violation of contracts and out-of-court settlements. That sort of encouragement couldn't possibly have negative effects.
  And I'll leave aside the plaintiff's likely difficulties that would arise from saying "Well, I broke part of the contract already; let's go violate some more terms!"
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
3. Re:Father should sue now. by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-03-02 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have to see the contract. It's probably written that if certain parts are broken, other parts remain in effect, but that can't be every part, because then the guy never would get paid in the first place.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Father should sue now. by thegarbz · 2014-03-02 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but contracts don't work like that. Settlement contracts are many pages long, do you really think that by not complying with a single line the entire contract is now void?
5. Re:Father should sue now. by swillden · 2014-03-03 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Since the original agreement was not to sue and not to say something, and that got broken, nothing to keep him from taking them to court and suing over the original thing.
  You're absolutely right... if the school's lawyer was blindingly incompetent. Otherwise, the settlement contract was in two sections, one of which settled the question in exchange for a token payment (e.g. $1) and the other of which contracted for non-disclosure in exchange for $80K. Further, a competent attorney would have ensured that both parties agreed in front of the judge that the token payment had been made and that the original issue was settled, and that the judge then dismissed the suit with prejudice, barring it from ever being raised again.
  Really, lawyers do know their business.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Reasonability Test by The+Cat · 2014-03-02 08:02 · Score: 0

1. It is not reasonable to presume that a father living in the same house with his daughter will keep a settlement so confidential that the daughter doesn't find out about it.
2. The daughter is not a party to the confidentiality agreement, therefore she has no legal duty to maintain it.
Case dismissed. Sounds like this family had a rather shitty lawyer. Perhaps an appeal with a new attorney will set things right.
1. Re:Reasonability Test by Todd+Knarr · 2014-03-02 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  You forget #3: The father is a party to the confidentiality agreement, therefore he has a legal duty to insure his daughter agrees to keep it confidential before he lets her know the details.
  I do agree that if she found out on her own without her father giving her any details, the school should be out of luck. But even in that case the courts would probably hold that he still had a duty to make the situation clear to her and that once he had she'd be bound to keep information she found confidential.
2. Re:Reasonability Test by sjames · 2014-03-02 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  If she's over 18, her agreement would not be his to grant. Even under 18, his ability to give her agreement may be limited.
3. Re:Reasonability Test by Todd+Knarr · 2014-03-02 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  He's not granting agreement, he's obliged to get her to agree. If she won't, he's obliged not to give her any details that if disclosed would breach his agreement.
4. Re:Reasonability Test by sjames · 2014-03-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  So what is he to do, claim he won it playing poker?
  ?
5. Re:Reasonability Test by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, if only cases were dismissed in real life because someone had an armchair legal theory about how the judge should rule on them!
  Word to the wise: Perhaps you should check the case law on this. Or at least take 10 seconds considering the flip-side: that it is not unreasonable to assume that a father in that situation would take steps to ensure confidentiality as a whole was not breached.
6. Re:Reasonability Test by SuiteSisterMary · 2014-03-03 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  "Where'd I get the money? Court settlement. I'm bound by a CA, and can't give further details."
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
7. Re:Reasonability Test by sjames · 2014-03-03 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  And there's no way a 19 year old might guess it was a settlement in the case that has been a major source of conversation in the house for the last year.
8. Re:Reasonability Test by SuiteSisterMary · 2014-03-03 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  And if she draws her own conclusions, that's reasonable. Though you could say 'And because of that CA, if you tell ANYONE, we get NOTHING. NOTHING!'
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:selfies of herself by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:10 · Score: 0

> the redundancy is redundant
Not any more than your posting a posting is redundant.
Besides, I thought nudity was verboten on FB??
Correct by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The school effectively paid $80k for confidentiality; a non-disclosure agreement, and a breach would still pay pay $1.
There usually needs to be consideration (money) for a deal to be a deal. Unless you are getting steam-rolled.
The settlement was two parts.
The first was acknowledgment of any claims or allegations (not agreement or objection), and there could be no further claims by either the parents or child (even when she becomes an adult), or other family members, ever; pertaining to those (generally defined but bound by a date range) allegations.
The second part was a conditional consideration (payment). This non-disclosure agreement would also have a time restriction of a reasonable time, probably a decade or less. This probably was setup as a payment schedule, though not required. The schedule continues the evaluation of the non-disclosure - and reminds them not to do what the child did.
No matter what, both parts are executed upon signature, and the conditional payment would be evaluated for a period of time before payout.
Once you give someone $80k and they spend it, not many people can come up with that amount of money, so there is always a waiting period.
They should have to apply a test to this.. by strstr · 2014-03-02 08:29 · Score: 0

Just because it was their daughter that overheard and leaked the details, doesn't mean the confidentiality agreement was broken.
First is, inside this family, information on how money was obtained and finaincial information, is typically common knowledge. The child themselves would have overheard or found out about it through any number of means because of this, and because they were not bound by the agreement themselves or even informed of it's terms, they would not really be bound to comply with it or follow the agreement.
I think the test I would apply here, is, under this type of situation, information can be leaked any number of ways, and in which case ; all it means is that information cannot be kept secret by agreements. It should not even be expected that it's kept secret. The test is, "if anyone else had spoken about this, or leaked this information," would it have resulted in the loss of the settlement. I don't think it would have, and they would have no choice but to still do the settlement even if the information had been leaked some other way.
I seriously don't think the court weighed the facts of this case right, because of something so trivial as the details of the settlement getting leaked out is another thing. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether there was actual damage and reason to award the money over.
Would love to see Gulliver post on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:43 · Score: 0

Would love to see Gulliver post a message on their FB page telling the girl to "SUCK IT". And Gulliver wouldn't be violating any agreements by doing that, so they wouldn't get into any trouble.
Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:47 · Score: 0

Murder all minors in the household before entering into the settlement. Keep those axes handy parents - Florida demands it! CHOP CHOP!
If only the girl had changed her privacy settings by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 08:52 · Score: 0

None of this would have happened.
Do they still owe their lawyers? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-03-02 08:58 · Score: 1

Typically these personal injury lawyers work on a cut on the settlement. Now that the lawyer has won the settlement, but it was yanked from him due to the stupidity of the daughter, do they still owe the lawyer his cut? Would the lawyer now sue the daughter for causing him financial loss?

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Do they still owe their lawyers? by SuiteSisterMary · 2014-03-03 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I would like to see Gullivers Post regarding this by gatkinso · 2014-03-02 09:51 · Score: 1

I doubt it contains the words "SUCK IT."

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Streisand Effect by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 09:57 · Score: 0

The reason why a party to such a settlement has such a gag order is to prevent a possible class action by similar litigants. In this case, they got a full Streisand Effect, and not just knowledge by a handful of facebook followers.
so close by slashmydots · 2014-03-02 09:58 · Score: 1

I'd say a "we won, SUCK IT!" Kathy Griffin style Facebook post is worth $35-40,000 tops. That's just not a wise financial move blowing $80,000 on it, lol.
Just go to "Gulliver" and... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 10:32 · Score: 0

shoot all the leaders and their lawyers in the head and light the building on fire. Problem solved.
They have no grounds by bl968 · 2014-03-02 10:35 · Score: 1

The father could not reasonably be expected to keep case nor the agreement secret from his immediate family, and unless the daughter signed the agreement she could not have been bound by it. Plus the daughter didn't reveal explicit details of the settlement. I think he should appeal.

--
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Re:Teenages^hCourts will do stupid things? by redelm · 2014-03-02 10:35 · Score: 2

Agreed. Once the public sword has been unsheathed, the public have an interest in knowing how their sword was used -- knowing the settlement. All settlements for suits filed. The Courts are corruptly reducing their workload by enforcing confidentiality terms.
Linkmania by Raenex · 2014-03-02 10:36 · Score: 1

Remember when their used to be one link to The Fucking Article? (If you don't, get off my lawn.) Is there any reason for three links, when one is the real story, and the other two are fluff pieces glossing the story?
Plaintiff lawyers will do stupid things (too) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 10:37 · Score: 0

The last thing anyone needs is more legislation controlling what kinds of deals people are or are not allowed to make.
I agree -- in fact, I can't even remember why we passed legislation to prevent people from selling themselves into servitude. And that stupid law preventing people from agreeing to accept $1 per hour for their labor -- WTF is up with that?
Damn straight we still need legislation limiting the kinds of deals people are allowed to make to only those deals that are beneficial to society as a whole.
Grounded! by Nefarious+Wheel · 2014-03-02 11:15 · Score: 1

Grounded until the heat-death of the Universe!

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
1. Re:Grounded! by Dishevel · 2014-03-03 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is the fathers fault. Why should the daughter be grounded?
  She is entitled to post shit on Facebook. Her father has taught her all about what she is entitled to and what others must do for you.
  So glad he will not get paid.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
abusive nda by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 11:43 · Score: 0

The nda was abusive is the first place. Transparency is the solution to corruption
Re: and then we will need some kind of basic incom by Catbeller · 2014-03-02 13:41 · Score: 1

No. It did not mean that at all. The business was allowed to tell the negroes to leave. And the cops loved to assist. No requirements to serve.
It's worse than it appears by RubberDogBone · 2014-03-02 14:09 · Score: 1

IANAL, but not only do they not get the $80K, presumably they still have/had legal fees related to this case which will need to be paid somehow. Likely they were to be paid from this money or from another pile of money from the school, but also likely that any such payout if it existed was also terminated by the breach of agreement.
So basically, Dad not only doesn't get 80K, he still has a legal bill to pay. And he has no job. This is made of win.
And now that the stuff has been made public, the school could possibly sue for breach of contract as well, and maybe defamation since they technically settled and didn't admit anything and weren't convicted of anything. However, the plaintiff's accusation is now in the open where it should not have been, has damaged the school's reputation, etc.
What a mess. Can they un-have this child? That might be the best option.

--
Sig for hire.
Re: and then we will need some kind of basic incom by _Sharp'r_ · 2014-03-02 15:06 · Score: 1

Perhaps try some simple wikipedia reading? I mean, I know that's almost like actually researching something, but really, you could just read the first paragraph and learn more than you appear to know.
The Jim Crow laws literally required businesses to segregate facilities. It was no longer a choice by the business. It was a legal requirement by Southern Democratic lawmakers to keep their different colored customers separate.

--
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
69 year old dad, teenage daughter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 15:34 · Score: 0

Maybe they wanted to retire the guy because he's *stupid*? Having new kids at age 50+ is.... fairly feckless.
Make it illegal to keep secret the details of sett by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 16:10 · Score: 0

Then don't sign the agreement. This is an agreement between two individual parties. If you don't like the settlement don't sign it. Other people that work for this company, or got fired, or didn't get hired would exploit this settlement and sue if this was public knowledge. It's comical how many people on this sight no nothing of the law or business and have little respect for business owners.
Confidentiality? by RawFoodSaloon · 2014-03-02 17:08 · Score: 1

Confidentiality Wise...! One Should take Responsibility...
she smokes weed here are the videos! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 17:49 · Score: 0

http://vinebox.co/u/wix0WeH0Xg9
what a dumb cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 18:43 · Score: 0

suck it
wait, what by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-02 18:44 · Score: 0

why would you sign an nda if you won a lawsuit?
US$80,000 is greater than enabling child porn? by SeanBlader · 2014-03-03 04:02 · Score: 1

I'm wondering what your teenage daughter posting naked pictures costs over a lifetime of missed job opportunities costs in comparison to a one time failure to gain US$80,000. Surely being a child porn star is pricier in the long run, not just financially, but emotionally as well?
fracking by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 04:18 · Score: 0

The oil companies have settled with possibly hundreds of people who were harmed or had property/water harmed by fracking. But they settle out of court, force a confidentiality agreement, and then their CEO's and directors go before congress and can say 'there is not one documented instance of fracking causing harm.' ..
Yes, they should be illegal. First amendment, rule of law, accurate knowledge of reality.. So many reasons they should be illegal.
selfie? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 04:34 · Score: 0

i hate the word selfie. maybe i'm used to self portrait. anyways, haven't seen naked self portraits on facebook. not sure what people are talking about
I'd pay $80,000 by DiEx-15 · 2014-03-03 06:12 · Score: 1

...to see this stupid kid's face when she discovered her Failbook post cost her parent's the lawsuit and thus her trip to Europe. It'd be priceless!
Gag orders by sjames · 2014-03-03 07:12 · Score: 1

I don't see how gag orders in court settlements can possibly be considered to be in the public interest. Why should a wrongdoer continue to enjoy a sterling reputation protected by contract? It is particularly questionable when the gag protects a legal fiction and where it is unlikely that the plaintiff is the only party that was wronged.
Screwed up system by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 15:44 · Score: 0

The teenager didn't do anything wrong. She was just being a teenager.
The problem is our fucked up legal system that held the parent responsible for what the teenager did. There was nothing malicious nor negligent in the father's actions, and the father had no knowledge of the actions.
For those who think the father did something wrong by talking to his teenager, do you ever talk to anyone besides your computer? Do you have relationships with real people?
That $80,000 was what was left after the sharks - I mean lawyers - were paid. Then the sharks took it back just because they could.
tech and contracts ! by perih60 · 2014-03-04 00:49 · Score: 1

the way i see this is that people do not understand what a contract is "" a volantary agreement between 2 or more party's " that is the definition in my dictionary . 2nd the tech part from my point of view is that we can now enter into a contract by a push of a button , or a stocke on the laptop " mouse " as i did a few days ago , by agreeing to a statement for the purchase of software . i feel sorry for people getting themself into a problem because they do not realise " or bother to read , or listen to what they are agreeing to " i think that the best example is the warning on ebay ! at least with them , using modern tech , a person has to Conferm , i also think , and many www users have come across sites where there is no warning , chlick the mouse and you have bought it . cevat empor

--
the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL
Clarity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-05 00:56 · Score: 0

I have been on several boards and this by FAR is filled with the most intelligent and insightful comments related to this subject.. I was starting to feel like the entire world was full of ill-equipped adults teaching children how to be ill-equipped adults.. thank you commenters on giving me hope.. AC
Suck it! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-05 02:26 · Score: 0

Remember Kids, only you can prevent data leaks.