Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

DISCRIMINATION PLAINTIFF MUST PAY BACK SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS DUE TO VIOLATING CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION

Written on .

In settlement agreements, it is quite common for the parties to insert confidentiality provisions, such as the following: "The plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this agreement . . . a breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the plaintiff's portion of the settlement payments."

In a case involving the above confidentiality provision, four days after the agreement was signed in 2011, the defendant employer notified the plaintiff employee that he had breached the agreement based on the Facebook posting of his college-age daughter, wherein she stated, "Mama and Papa Snay [plaintiff] won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer . . . ."

Because of the alleged breach of the settlement agreement, the employer refused to pay the settlement amount, arguing that the statement in the daughter's Facebook constituted a breach. The plaintiff's deposition was taken and he admitted that he told his daughter about the situation, and the court found that the fact that he knew he needed to tell his daughter something did not excuse his breach. The daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality provision was designed to prevent, advertising to the Gulliver community that Snay had been successful in his age discrimination and retaliation case against the school. Thus, the plaintiff lost the case, and had to return the settlement monies. Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Patrick Snay, 121 FEP Cases 1421 (Florida District Court of Appeals, 2014).

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

gavel

Judge Invalidates Joint Employer Rule, and Independent Contractor Rule Takes Effect

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Joint Employer Regulation, which was set to take effect March 11, 2024, was invalidated by a Te...
balance of justice statue

The Importance of Fairness in Employment to the Law and to Job Satisfaction

Some of you may have heard about disgruntled employees taping phone conversations of their discharge and mentioning them on social media ...
we the people, focus, document

Major Employers Challenge Constitutionality of Labor Act

Amazon is the most recent major employer to challenge the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRB), joining Trader Jo...
starbucks drink on a table

Starbucks' Big Change in Labor Policies

Starbucks' new public commitment to work with its union antagonists to resolve issues has been called a landmark in labor relations.  In ...
smiling blocks

Judge Orders Survey Data to Be Revealed from Employer EEO-1 Reports

Employers are supposed to file annually the EEO-1, Standard Form 100, with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  This requirement applies ...
mcdonalds sign, blue sky

Featured Article at The Federalist Society: Franchise With That? McDonald’s No-Poach Agreements Receive Antitrust Scrutiny

Elizabeth K. Dorminey authored another article for the Federalist Society. Here's a quick summary of what this article, Franchise With ...