<p>apprenticeprof, Gulliver Academy is a private school, so it’s not part of a large district or anything. In any case, remember that the point of a legal settlement is coming to MUTUALLY AGREEABLE terms to resolve a dispute. In this case, the headmaster sued for damages. The school offered him $80K plus $60K in legal fees. He didn’t have to accept their offer or agree to their terms. But he did, and he signed the document confirming his acceptance. That also meant the school was bound to keep silent on the terms. Gulliver did not go and badmouth the guy after they settled the suit. In fact, he seems to have found a comparable position at a comparable school in the same area–literally, less than 5 miles away and in the same conference–without much difficulty.</p>
<p>As for what a young adult needs to know about her parents’ finances, I guess your family is very different from mine. I have absolutely no insight into the details of my father’s assets, and he is 84. He talks in vague terms now and then about what will happen after he is gone but there is no specificity in any of our discussions. I don’t consider it my right to know in real time how his stocks are doing or what the balance is in his pension plan. I certainly didn’t know anything at all 15 years ago when he was the age of the headmaster. Sadly, $80K is not a life-changing amount of money for most people anyway–especially for a young woman starting out in her career and for a couple in their 60s (the wife might be much younger) in which at least one person is still working.</p>
<p>One can argue the benefits of financial transparency within families but that does not change the fact that this guy knowingly broke a contract. He didn’t have to bring the suit, and he didn’t have to settle. What he DID have to do was not talk to his mouthy daughter. I am sure he has many regrets over the situation that we cannot even imagine.</p>
<p>Something tells me the D may have heard that sentiment (about the school paying for the trip) expressed already in her house. Maybe she was just repeating what she heard. Doesn’t make it right and a 17 year old ought to know better. </p>
<p>The major difference in your example above is that paying money for a kidney has bad implications for public policy and thus is currently illegal. Non-disclosure clauses in legal settlements, on the other hand, are not considered to have seriously negative public policy implications and thus, fine from a legal standpoint. </p>
<p>Especially considering government agencies at all levels do include non-disclosures not only as a condition of employment, but also when they are the defendants negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff suing them. </p>
<p>I think apprenticeprof is saying that non-disclosure clauses have bad implications for public policy and ought to be illegal. Perhaps they ought to be illegal, but they are not currently illegal, and therefore a plaintiff can choose to agree to a non-disclosure clause. And if they do, they have no cause for sympathy if they break their agreement and lose their money.</p>
<p>The issue is that because government agencies have it in their interest to use non-disclosure clauses in settlement terms and there are some good public policy reasons for having them, making non-disclosure clauses illegal is very likely to be regarded as contrary to public policy by those in government at all levels. </p>
<p>m2ck,
She will be off to college, hopefully, where her “social circle” will not likely be aware of the situation or be crass enough to throw it in her face. Maybe once, but that person wouldn’t likely stay in her “social circle”.</p>
<p>Pretty lousy/cruel “friends” or family members if they continue to tease her about this for any length of time, especially if its already caused her enough emotional angst to send her into therapy. Big difference between some minor silly thing we did as a small kid and something like this. If someone did something funny as a kid, occasional gentle ribbing may not be mean. Continuing to mock her for this, especially with the examples you give, despite how stupid what she did 2 years ago was, would be mean -spirited and hurtful.</p>
<p>jym, I believe the emotional angst that led the girl into therapy was from her treatment by others when she was a student at the school, not from the Facebook post that happened after she had graduated. Not that it makes a huge difference.</p>
<p>Agreed, sally. But if she is already prone to emotional angst from being mistreated by classmates, lets hope that current friends or family members wouldn’t retraumatize her. 'What she did was stupid. She’s probably haranguing herself for it. Hopefully the media frenzy will die down and classmates won’t continue to taunt her, if they currently are. </p>
<p>** apologies if I was unclear in the previous post. My referent to " its caused her angst" was referring to the events of 2011, not present.</p>
<p>Not likely to die down for at least the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>By disclosing the settlement the way she did, she seriously screwed her family on the financial front and her manner in doing so can reasonably be perceived as exceedingly spoiled* and lacking discretion. Moreover, she’s no longer a child, but a young adult when she committed this act. That changes the equation a bit. </p></li>
<li><p>In the age of google/social media searches by employers, this may haunt her badly during job searches/interviews as employers in firms/positions. Especially ones where high levels of discretion and professionalism are required are likely to inquire about this act in some detail…assuming they’re willing to overlook it enough to even give her an interview. </p></li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Picture and using the words “SUCK IT”.</li>
</ul>
<p>One aspect of this I haven’t seen on this thread, is that the father may have seen the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement as beneficial to him as well as to the school. Future employers don’t like to hear that applicants have sued former employers, so that info getting out could hurt him. These provisions are generally pushed by the defendant, but can benefit the plaintiff, too.</p>
<p>You are aware that fbk post was from 2011, yes? And that the reference to a trip to Europe was a joke, yes? Maybe she should befriend the 18 yo NJ girl who left her home last fall and is suing her parents for unpaid HS expenses and college tuition (suit being funded by the attorney father of the friend with whom she is staying-- what a guy).They can ward off the taunting together.</p>
<p>So when was the payment terminated? Recently? or after the FB post? </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Absolutely! Many of the settlements from sexual abuse cases have non-disclosure clauses because the victims’ families do not want their child’s name/info/etc publicly known. Yes, the defendants probably want non-disclosure as well, but parents of child-victims often want it, too. </p>
<p>This case started years ago – shortly after the fb post – and the lower Florida state court found in favor of the father, but was recently reversed by the appellate court. I suppose there may be a further appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.</p>
<p>She was around 19-20 when that post was made and thus, a young adult at the time. </p>
<p>Also, the manner in which one jokes can cause others to reasonably form a seriously negative impression on the one making the joke and act accordingly. </p>
<p>And that’s assuming certain folks, like employers are going to even care whether it’s a joke as opposed to perceiving it as a red flag sign this young adult is acting immaturely and exhibits poor discretion which may make her a poor/disastrous fit for the firm/position they are hiring for. </p>
<p>So it looks like this has been going on for three years…first in 2011 and then in the meantime with appeals, etc. </p>
<p>The reports about the trip differ. In some, it says that parents promised her a European vacation after winning the award, and in other reports, it says it was a joke. </p>
<p>A lot of the questions posted in this thread are answered there^^^^^.</p>
<p>The problem for this young lady is Google. Back when most of us were young, a mistake was something that usually remained private, or at least stayed in a relatively small orbit. It was possible to move on or move somewhere else where our secrets remained secrets. Not so for our kids. That’s why I’m always emphasizing to my kids that the “delete” button is not an absolute.</p>