You breach those confidentiality clauses at your peril

[MillCreek]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/02/us/facebook-post-costs-father/index.html?eref=edition

I write confidentiality clauses in all my settlement agreements.  The problem lies in enforcing them.  This case was a unique fact pattern insofar as the breach was done and made known to the defendant before the settlement check was issued, so they could put a stop to it.  It is pretty hard to enforce the agreement and claw the money back when the plaintiffs/counsel have already cashed the check. 

[SADShooter]

To echo a sentiment 230RN revived here recently: "Tough noogies." Living in a civilized society means actions have consequences and contracts should be enforceable. Your failure to make your daughter comprehend the gravity and implications of the situation and your contractual obligation is exactly that. Your failure. Suck it.

[brimic]

"What happened is that after settlement, my wife and I went in the parking lot, and we had to make some decisions on what we were going to tell my daughter. Because it's very important to understand that she was an intricate part of what was happening.

"She was retaliated against at Gulliver. So she knew we were going to some sort of mediation. She was very concerned about it. Because of what happened at Gulliver, she had quite a few psychological scars which forced me to put her into therapy.

"So there was a period of time that there was an unresolved enclosure for my wife and me. It was very important with her. We understood the confidentiality. So we knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something," Snay explained in court documents.

Erm no.
Financial stuff is none of the kids' business. They never need to know how much, or where its coming from, other than reassurance that the parents will provide a safe, stabile environment for them to grow up in.

[Tallpine]

Hospitals bury their mistakes with money. 

We have a friend who was an accomplished pianist and piano teacher who lost use of one arm because the results of a routine test were routinely ignored.  Of course they don't talk about it anymore.

[MechAg94]

If this kid was smart enough to post it on Facebook, she was smart enough to understand why she shouldn't post it on Facebook. 

[BryanP]

If this kid was smart enough to post it on Facebook, she was smart enough to understand why she shouldn't post it on Facebook. 

Based on some of the stuff I see on FB, this statement is demonstrably untrue.

[MechAg94]

Based on some of the stuff I see on FB, this statement is demonstrably untrue.

My parents used to advise my brother and I to NOT say anything about the nice things we had when I was 5 or 6.  They just need to spank the kid a bit more until she obeys. 

[zahc]

Dad is stupid for talking. Agreement was for Dad not to say anything. Dad should deny saying anything to his daughter. How will they prove otherwise? Daughter could have found out via any number of means.

[BlueStarLizzard]

So after settling they went out and told their kid about the settlement and, presumably, that she wasn't to discuss it, after which she posts it on FB (and in a really snotty post)?

Yeah, no, they got what they ultimatly deserved. He may have been discriminated against by his former employor, but he also raised a snot nosed brat.

I disagree about keeping your children ignorant of finachial issues, and obviously the child was aware of the situation and needed to be informed. However, the child also sounds like she's old enough to understand "confedential" and "do not discuss this with anyone."

[vaskidmark]

He was the head honcho at his former employer, whose mission (his and his employer's) was to raise snot-nosed brats.  I'd say "Mission accomplished" on that factor.

stay safe.

[HankB]

From the story I read, the breach of confidentiality happened when the daughter was informed of the settlement; SHE didn't sign it or agree to it, her dad did. (Being a minor, can she even be party to a legally enforceable contract?)

I blame the parents for not teaching their Facebooking daughter (is "Facebooking" an actual word?) the virtues of discretion.

My parents used to advise my brother and I to NOT say anything about the nice things we had when I was 5 or 6.

Same here - as I got older I got to know more and more about family finances, but I had it drilled into me at an early age to NOT repeat NOT discuss it with ANYBODY outside our immediate household.

[MillCreek]

From the story I read, the breach of confidentiality happened when the daughter was informed of the settlement; SHE didn't sign it or agree to it, her dad did. (Being a minor, can she even be party to a legally enforceable contract?)

That right there is probably the key, depending on how the confidentiality clause was drafted.  The father (and possibly the mother) were the parties to the lawsuit, and the clause most likely forbade them from discussing the settlement with anyone.  When they informed the daughter of the specifics, they breached the clause.

[230RN]

I guess the reason for the confidentiality clauses in out-of-court settlements is to avoid establishing case law on the subject.  I believe I heard about this when the "Pinto Gas Tank" problem arose, but before the frequency of gas tank ruptures became so obvious that actual steps had to be taken.

I could be wrong, but that's my recollection.

Terry

[vaskidmark]

Confidentiality clauses generally extend to parties outside of the immediate family, not to minor children within the family unit.  However, there may have been language binding the minor child(ren) to confidentiality as well.

OR -

Parents are usually responsible for the actions of their minor children.  Kid breaks a window & mom/dad pay to replace it.  Kid trashes the school & mom/dad pay for the cleanup.  Under that "rule" of law, kid blabs & mom/dad pay.

What gets me is that most settlements contain a non-responsibility clause covering the party settling.  "I didn't do it and promise to never do it again."  If that were the case, then it seems the school may have a libel case against the kid (directly or through her parents via above "rule" of law).  Settlement was not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, just money thrown at the plaintiff to shut them up and make them go away.  Kid's FB post suggests she claimed the school was guilty of some legal impropriety.

Is my thinking along these lines evidence that I spend/spent too much time around tilecrawlers?

stay safe.

[Tallpine]

I guess the reason for the confidentiality clauses in out-of-court settlements is to avoid establishing case law on the subject.  I believe I heard about this when the "Pinto Gas Tank" problem arose, but before the frequency of gas tank ruptures became so obvious that actual steps had to be taken.

I could be wrong, but that's my recollection.

Terry

Defendant wants to settle the case without admitting any fault nor allowing any public knowledge of fault.

[HankB]

Defendant wants to settle the case without admitting any fault nor allowing any public knowledge of fault.

Public knowledge would 1) suggest to others that they, too have been harmed; and 2) indicate the defendant will pay $$$ to settle; 3) bad PR

Both 1) and 2) would encourage additional suits.

[Ned Hamford]

But their lawyer still got his check right?  Ok, no worries then.   

[Tallpine]

3) bad PR

Never admit your mistake 

[T.O.M.]

But their lawyer still got his check right?  Ok, no worries then.   

That is a beautiful thing...

Thanks Ned.  Been one of those days, and appreciate the laugh.