<p>When you read the terms, unless I’m misunderstanding, the father probably shouldn’t have agreed to the confidentiality of the mere existence of an agreement. That is just too strict in my mind.</p>
<p>I’ve seen settlements announced that an agreement has been reached but the details will remain confidential, but this seemed to disallow even admitting that an agreement even existed (with no mention of details). It would seem to me that his attys poorly advised him in regards to that. </p>
<p>After all, it wouldn’t be unusual to expect a parent to say “something” to their 17/18 year old child in regards to the lawsuit. What’s he supposed to say, “I can neither admit nor deny my lawsuit has reached a conclusion”?</p>
<p>That said, if the dad told his D that she would get a vacation as some kind of compensation for what she’d been thru, then that’s just tempting fate that the D wouldn’t spill the beans.</p>
<p>It almost seems like the clause was written in a way that the defendants knew that it would be hard to keep a total secret. Although I admit that if the D hadn’t put it on FB, they would have had a harder time proving. </p>
<p>I mean Google. When she applies for jobs, or makes new friends, they are going to Google her. They may or may not be sympathetic to her or to the fact that she was a lot younger back then.</p>
<p>I google everything from how to fix a glitch with my phone or computer to questions regarding my child’s physics lab experiment. I love google, it helps me get through life.</p>
<p>I had mentioned yesterday that confidentiality agreements are designed to protect both parties, and that in this case the father seemingly had no trouble getting a job at a school in the same conference less than five miles away.</p>
<p>I guess we can speculate whether this is a chicken/egg thing with the girl–was she always so obnoxious, and that’s why she was “traumatized” at school, or did she become obnoxious after people were unfairly mean to her (perhaps because her dad was the headmaster)? Whatever happened, I see little reason to defend her behavior, and I also think she has done herself a professional disservice that she will regret for a long time. She has also embarrassed her parents immensely, apart from costing them a lot of money.</p>
<p>harvestmoom and jym. for different reasons,I appreciate the support. sally, as a “neighbor” of mine, I would be annoyed that this man got another job at nearby school without his affairs being public, especially if I had a chid attending that nearby school.</p>
<p>Two issues with that. One, 2011 isn’t that long ago and she was already a young adult when she made that post. It’s one thing if that post was made in HS as many may forgive that as an indiscretion of a wayward minor. </p>
<p>It’s a different story if we’re talking someone old enough to vote, agree to abide/sign contracts, join the armed forces, etc. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most reports I read on this case which disclosed age stated she was 19 or 20 when that infamous FB post was made. </p>
<p>I’m wondering if the “need” to tell the D really had little to do with her having been harassed, and more to do with the fact that she knew that her parents were going in this legal process.</p>
<p>Think about it…you know your dad is suing his former employer, you know that the process is going forth. It’s somewhat reasonable for parents to say whether the result was positive or not. That’s why I think the "non disclosure’ should have only dealt with dollar amounts, not simply the fact that an agreement existed. After all, what are parents supposed to say, “uh, it’s still ongoing”??? When it’s not still ongoing?? Or are they supposed to really lie and say they lost?</p>
<p>She graduated from HS in 2010, and from BC in 2013. She is apparently working on a masters’ in philosophy there now. (Got this from LinkedIn.)</p>
<p>Her dad was told his contract would not be renewed for the 2010-2011 school year, so my guess is that he finished out the 2010 school year and left approximately when his daughter did. The case was settled in November 2011. Four days later, Dana posted the message on FB. So she would have been a college sophomore.</p>
<p>This says she was born in 1991, making her most likely 20 when she put up the “SUCK IT” post. She is an only child. Apparently she was a top debate student.</p>
<p>If that’s also what the plaintiff thought, he should have negotiated that wording. Instead, he signed it, and according to his testimony, definitely understood it.</p>
<p>The details don’t matter. The courts have made their decision. All of this is history now. From what I gather, there chances of an appeal overturning this are small The girl has suffered a lot I’m sure for writing the remark and for her family losing the money and now later the notoriety as the story has all come out. It looks like we are seeing what happened rather than what is happening here.</p>
<h2>That’s why I think the "non disclosure’ should have only dealt with dollar amounts, not simply the fact that an agreement existed.</h2>
<p>If that’s also what the plaintiff thought, he should have negotiated that wording. Instead, he signed it, and according to his testimony, definitely understood it.
<<<<</p>
<p>But I do think that it’s the atty’s job to really explain that to his client. A lay person may not realize what those words really mean as far as telling close family/friends who already KNOW that you’re in the lawsuit process. </p>
<p>And, I would think an atty would realize how ridiculous that clause was and recommend to his client that it be excluded. I don’t know if it rises to the level of atty malpractice, but that might be something to explore.</p>
<p>Certainly a number of attorneys who handle such lawsuits are now thinking, “hmm, I better make sure those words aren’t present OR I need to make sure that my client understand what that clause really means.”</p>