(106 Total References)
Florida Council of Independent Schools: Gulliver Schools
Patrick Snay & Steve solomon Upper Head
DaughterÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Facebook post costs dadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s $80,000 settlement deal
After her father, Patrick Snay, had reached an agreement where he would receive an $80,000 settlement and $10,000 in back pay from Guillver Preparatory School, a Miami girl wrote on Facebook that the school could "SUCK IT.
"Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver.
Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer.
, 69, had filed an age discrimination complaint against the school when his
2010-11 contract wasn't renewed and the two sides agreed to the settlement.
ithin a few days, Gulliver Schools
sent a letter to Snay
's attorneys stating that Snay had broken a confidentiality agreement and that he
would not be receiving the $80,000 settlement.
The Third District Court of Appeal tossed out an $80,000 discrimination settlement between Gulliver Preparatory School and its former headmaster Patrick Snay, ruling the ex-employee and his daughter breached the terms of a confidential agreement when she took to social media to brag about it.
violated the agreement by doing exactly what he
had promised not to do,� Judge Linda Ann Wells wrote. œHis daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.�
Why Are Confidentiality Provisions Important In Settlement Agreements? - Garg Golden Law Firm
The Third District Court of Appeal tossed out an $80,000 discrimination settlement Wednesday between Gulliver Preparatory School and its former headmaster Patrick Snay, ruling the ex-employee and his daughter breached the terms of a confidential agreement when she took to social media to brag about it.
Facebook post costs former school headmaster $80k - Lesperance Mendes
Patrick Snay, 69, worked as a headmaster at Gulliver Preparatory School.
When his 2010-2011 contract was not renewed, he filed a complaint alleging age discrimination.
The parties entered into a settlement agreement, the terms of which included a confidentiality provision which provided that the existence and terms of the agreement were to be kept strictly confidential or a portion of the settlement proceeds ($80,000) would be disgorged.
After signing the settlement agreement, Mr. Snay
wife agreed to inform their daughter, Dana, that the case was settled and they were happy with the result.
A few days later, the school notified Mr. Snay
had breached the settlement agreement.
applied to enforce the agreement.
argued that he
never told Dana that he
had "won" the case, Dana did not plan to go to Europe that summer, and he
had to tell his
daughter something about the resolution of the complaint.
The appellate court ruled that Mr. Snay
had breached the confidentiality clause, so he
was not entitled to payment of $80,000.
When Patrick Snay, 69, was let ...
When Patrick Snay, 69, was let go as the headmaster of Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami, he filed an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, which was settled for $80,000 in November 2011.
The settlement agreement contained a standard confidentiality clause preventing either party from talking about the terms.
teenage daughter Dana about the agreement, which included $10,000 in back pay, $60,000 for attorney's fees, and the $80,000 settlement.
told the Miami Herald
felt obligated to explain it to his
daughter because she
suffered from "psychological scars" from peers at the school.
Dana, in turn, bragged about the settlement on Facebook to her
1,200 friends, many of whom attended Gulliver
According to court documents, the post read: "Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver
is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer.
The post reached the school's lawyers at the speed of social media, and on November 7, 2011, four days after reaching the deal, the attorneys told Snay
they wouldn't pay him.
filed a motion to enforce the settlement on June 9, 2012, which he
won, but the school won an appeal on February 26, 2014.
never told Dana that he'd "won" the case, and that she
didn't go to Europe that summer.
Judge Wells added, "Rather, before the ink was dry on the agreement, and notwithstanding the clear language of section 13 mandating confidentiality, Snay
violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do."
, appellee, No. 3D13-1952, Lower Tribunal No. 10-62368.
Jonathan M. Streisfield, David L. Ferguson and Scott J. Weiselberg, of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Keechl were attorneys for Snay, the appellee.