Call it the biggest Facebook mistake ever. A daughter’s snarky status update has cost her father the $80,000 settlement he won in an age-discrimination lawsuit.

According to the Miami Herald, Patrick Snay, 69, was the headmaster at Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami for several years, but in 2010, the school didn’t renew his contract. Snay sued his former employer for age discrimination and won a settlement of $80,000 in November 2011. The agreement contained a standard confidentiality clause, prohibiting Snay or the school from talking about the case.

However, Snay’s daughter, Dana, now at Boston College and a part-time Starbucks barista, couldn’t resist bragging about the case on Facebook. “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver,” she wrote. “Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

More on Yahoo Shine: Teen Hit With $6,000 Bill After Using Facebook During NYC Vacation

Dana has 1,200 Facebook friends, many of whom are current and former Gulliver students, and news of the post made its way back to the school’s lawyers, who appealed the verdict. The Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the $80,000 settlement earlier this week. “Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do,” Judge Linda Ann Wells wrote. “His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.”

More on Yahoo: More Than 3 Million Teens Flee Facebook

According to depositions obtained by the Miami Herald, Snay argued that he needed to share the news with his daughter because she suffered “psychological scars” from her time at the school and besides, she knew her parents were in mediation. “We knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something,” he said. Snay is now headmaster at Riviera Preparatory Academy in Coral Gables. He is allowed to file a motion for rehearing and also appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.


However, the odds of Snay's winning his money back are slim, according to attorney Bradley Shear. “It depends on the terms of the confidentiality contract; each one is different, but the damage is likely done,” Shear tells Yahoo Shine. “Some confidentiality agreements stipulate that the client cannot tell people who are not involved in the case: others prohibit anyone from knowing. Facebook is a public forum, even if her profile is set to private, and that’s where the mistake was made.”

Had Snay’s daughter been discreet, the court would not have discovered the family had violated Snay's contract. “The bottom line is, when involved in legal proceedings, don’t disclose anything on social media,” says Shear. “It’s not worth it.”

Oh, and that European vacation? Probably not happening now.

http://sundial.csun.edu/2013/02/colorblind-ideology-a-new-form-of-racism/


although I don't think the daughter was wise in her choice, I do think it was her choice as she signed no agreement and the father cant control what she shares with whom

and being in the same home and aware of the lawsuit , it would be unreasonable to expect him to be able to keep it from her,,,

i read this earlier, they have a case, because of the clause to keep it quite... the daughter didn't keep it quite...

I get that it totally depends upon the wording of the contract

Im just not sure how reasonable it is to expect family members in the same home to not be aware or become aware of a favorable settlement if they were aware of a lawsuit

and if its reasonable to penalize one person for another persons choice,,,,to share that household information..

He violated it when he talked of it to his daughter in the 1st place.

Now they can suck it.

that's true

if those were the conditions , he shouldn't have spoken directly to her

but even had he not said anything DIRECTLY, its unreasonable to expect that she wouldn't find out if she knew the lawsuit had happened,, at some point, when its no longer discussed at all and the family comes into money,,,,,,its gonna be obvious

not something that can truly be kept secret amongst household members

but maybe it could be avoided if he had also shared that any talk about it would cost them the case,,,

Some people just don't know when to keep their trap shut......

thats true, but its more expected out of the young and inexperienced,,,, like the daughter in question

But you haven't a clue about law, much less the law of contracts. So that would make the only true statement...



Anything thereafter would not have any truth whatsoever.

lol

dont tell me, you are an experienced lawyer yourself ?

so IM sure what you think takes precedence here,, please explain the portion of the 'law of contracts' that would make one person liable to uphold a contract another person signed...

your superior knowledge is something that should be shared, not just repeatedly claimed,,,or implied, by constantly attacking what someone elses knowledge may or may not be

,,, ,,,

so please, if the 'truth' is absent, feel free to be the one who contributes it,,,

So you are saying it is unreasonable to declare a breech of a contract, which is just law but are ok with entitlements, which is unconstitutional law.

Maybe that is why I enjoy the court system so much, there is justice in this country if you know where to seek it.

what for did you sneak that Link about Racism into your post,which has no bearing on it or the Article you posted?

I 'said' nothing here about entitlements,, try to stay focused on the topic at hand,,,

declaring a breech of contract isn't the question, the question is what should (reasonably) CONSTITUTE a breech of contract,,

"if"

"but"

"not"

"but"

The total sum of your argument, an empty opinion.

But for the daughter, a product of today's education: entitlement endowed, social media, unable to think, lives in the moment, no personal responsibility.

Sort of reminds me of that lady that has something to do with the Spanish bulls.

I didnt 'sneak' anything

I multitask online, I have several windows open, and I mistakenly copied the web address from the wrong window when trying to cite my source,,,,

my error

Yeah that would be it, the daughter in question....

Wouldn't have anything to do with anyone else, would it?

And what the heck why this is open, here is a comment from a Miami news rag...

"Spending the first seven years of my life growing up in Communist Cuba I was taught - if you eat steak for lunch and talk about it with your friends, your dad will be parking his *** in front of the firing squad tomorrow for breakfast- (it was meat purchased in the black market) how's that for keeping secrets? They should lend me that little ***** for a week."

Yeah those Cubans sure do know how to keep things close to their chests alright.

communists and cubans?

what has that to do with the inexperience of youth or the daughter?

It's in the troll handbook on How to shuck-n-jive, aka, divert attention.

Lawyer, why no my parents were married and I don't join unions. But I am counsel as per:

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And I am definitely not a sworn officer of the court and owe them nothing but a fun time in legalville.

I was just going to let that slide but since you bought it up, maybe she just couldn't help herself, after all this is a white family from the pictures.

does parents marital status omit one from the law school process?

or just another irrelevant contribution,,,?