<p>Terms of settlements depend on what parties negotiate. You can turn down any offer and blab whatever you like, but it may be a poor strategy, especially if judge and jurors decide you are a person undeserving of any recovery. </p>
<p>Many of the settlements we agreed to had confidentiality clauses. If you take the case to trial, you will likely have all the publicity you desire and more. You can also lose. Settlements do weigh publicity in deciding whether to pay and how much. If you choose not to abide by the terms, it is at your peril and consequences can and do flow. </p>
<p>Actually, you could even be made to reimburse for attorneys fees for both sides, incurred due to your breaching the settlement terms, depending on how the settlement agreement was written. </p>
<p>Even if the dad did share news about his case, why did he tell her about the amount of money he won? Why not just leave it that he won. Adding that he won $80,000 seems to me why the daughter is rejoicing. Her photo and those last two sentences were the part that became so memorable that it was shared.</p>
<p>^^^
The father was NOT supposed to tell HER. She was not included in the “circle of trust” so to speak of who was supposed to know. Likely the agreement stated that he could tell his spouse, and that only the lawyers (and of course the school) would know.</p>
<p>If you have a BIG SECRET that you’re not supposed to tell anyone, and you tell your child (even if you say, "it’s a secret), and the child tells, then YOU are at fault.</p>
<p>My H has a top secret security clearance. If he were to tell me something that he wasn’t supposed to, and I told anyone, HE would be the one who would be WRONG (and he’d be fired). </p>
<p>Huh? Sure, he should have kept his trap shut,and who knows what he said or alluded to when they talked about financing the vacation. But comparing it to giving a car to an intoxicated person-- IMO thats silly. They are not at all the same, other than as examples of bad judgment.</p>
<p>“Even if the dad did share news about his case, why did he tell her about the amount of money he won? Why not just leave it that he won. Adding that he won $80,000 seems to me why the daughter is rejoicing. Her photo and those last two sentences were the part that became so memorable that it was shared.”</p>
<p>Right.</p>
<p>The dad is claiming that he told his D because she also was involved. But, he never had to tell her the amount. He could have just said that a fair settlement was made and our family’s situation is now better. </p>
<p>The pic and the last two sentences just demonstrate spoiled brattiness.</p>
<p>Bookworm asks a good question…will the lawyers have to give the money they were paid back? They got a 1/3 probably. Don’t know if the $80k was the net after attys.</p>
<p>Adding to above…</p>
<p>I wonder if in “do not disclose” settlements if the “winner’s” attorneys also have their clients sign something that protects THEM from having to pay back their “cut” if the client blabs???</p>
<p>D in this case was an idiot, and probably an obnoxious brat, but I don’t like non-disclosure agreements. I get that it gives the party being sued incentive to settle, and I can kind of understand prohibitions on things like writing a book or giving public interviews, in the case of a high-profile case, but a total gag order that prohibits telling even friends and family? </p>
<p>I know that it is the plaintiff’s choice to agree to those terms, but it strikes me as a coercive situation. Unless you have really deep pockets, you may not be in a position to turn down a settlement offer at all, and you’re going to be under a lot of pressure to come to terms in any case. And in what other context can two people come to a legal agreement to give up basic rights and freedoms? I mean, DAs can’t cut deals with criminals saying “we’ll let you go this time, but if you get caught again, you agree to waive the right to a jury of your peers.” What if someone sued a religious organization and they decided to make a settlement contingent on the person converting to their particular branch of Christianity? Would that be Ok?</p>
<p>It may well be the Dad’s “fault” for telling his daughter, but you can’t ignore the fact that she “outed” him. Unless her father just inexplicably neglected to tell her he was under a gag order, I don’t get why in the heck she would do that. Some people seem to think you’ve really got to tell people everything on your facebook. I don’t get the compulsion.</p>
<p>Such clauses are meant to minimize the chances of settlement details from being revealed in public along with the fact not having such iron-clad gag orders have two negative effects:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The non-disclosure agreements have no real teeth because the parties could then get around them by telling their immediate family without serious repercussions. </p></li>
<li><p>Defendants being sued are much less likely to settle as they’d feel the lack of teeth in non-disclosure clauses means they may feel it’s better to take their chances with a public trial. A trial where most details will be publicly accessible to any interested party unless the judge feels there’s compelling reason to rule otherwise. One consequence of this would be a great increase in the workload of judges and overflowing court dockets. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Moreover, the fear of people…including immediate family members who are inclined to blab because they exhibit poor discretion or worse, feel their need to blab or they’ll burst overrides other considerations is a powerful motivator for having such clauses not only in legal settlements, but also many other agreements such as employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements. </p>
<p>I myself had to sign some contracts where it specifically stated I wasn’t to discuss anything related to my job even with immediate family/SO due to the sensitivity regarding what we were working on and expectation from clients. </p>
<p>It’s also something many military spouses had to learn and deal with as spouses of my older cousins experienced when they were serving as military officers and thus, couldn’t divulge any details. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some people have an exceedingly poor sense of discretion and/or feel their need to disclose because they feel they will burst they don’t overrides other considerations.</p>
<p>How many of you know friends, relatives, acquaintances, or other folks in various areas of life who gossip and disclose TMI on matters that aren’t anyone else’s business? </p>
<p>Yes, these are the very folks such non-disclosure/gag clauses are meant to defend against. </p>
<p>Unless I am reading the article wrong, nowhere does it say the dad told her how much the settlement was. It says she bragged on fbk that the school was paying for her summer vacation. But we were told above by a poster with first-hand knowledge of this guy that he’s a jerk, so looks like what goes around comes around.</p>
<p>Is Yahoo News a reliable source? I’m not being snarky here. I’ve wondered this before. I’ve heard that it’s not, but seeing as CC parents, who are usually quite intelligent, are taking it seriously, I’m starting to have second thoughts.</p>
<p>Oh, for the love of God. From the Herald article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the girl experienced psychological scars because of her attitude?</p>
<p>It’s funny how some things don’t change. I grew up down the road from Gulliver and my school played against them in the same sports conference. Even back then it had a reputation for attracting spoiled brats.</p>
<p>Father is a complete idiot here not only for telling his D, but admitting it outright as he did here. </p>
<p>Especially considering he agreed to the settlement terms which included the non-disclosure agreement he’s obligated to honor. If he had any issues with that, he could have negotiated to not have such a clause or to opt for a full trial where most things will be public record. </p>
<p>In this case, it seems the father has no one to blame for this but himself. </p>
<p>So now his position is that he signed a legal agreement, knowing that he had no intention of abiding by it? And because he signed a legal agreement knowing he wouldn’t obey it, he should be able to keep the money? Apparently the judge had the same opinion of that argument that I do.</p>
<p>I think this case turned out exactly as it should have - no $ for Snay or the indiscreet D. The age discrimination suit was probably trumped up anyway as Snay seemed to have a questionable professional reputation to begin with. So his contract was probably not renewed for a reason, and he then took advantage of the fact that he was 69. Can you imagine how irritated he must be to see that $80,000 vanish into thin air? Not much of a settlement anyway as lawsuits go.</p>
<p>^I agree completely. The size of the settlement suggests that he didn’t have much of a case anyway. I would love to know what the supporting evidence was.</p>
<p>I read in a comment section on one of the articles that the daughter graduated from BC in 2013, meaning the psychological scars (whatever they were) were well in the past. Honestly, people like this do a lot to undermine the credibility of those who do have legitimate grievances–of discrimination, bullying, or whatever else the Snays are claiming.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^
Well hopefully she is gainfully employed by now in a job that might necessitate her keeping her tongue in her mouth. Never understood that whole thing with the tongue………………….</p>