Daughter Posts Settlement on Facebook – Employer Dislikes – Dad in Hot Water

17 March 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Social media in general, and Facebook in particular, seems to have become so ingrained in modern existence that while it is potentially laughable, it is nonetheless true that we can seriously live by the tenet “If it’s not on Facebook, it did not happen.” But when it comes to confidential settlement agreements, there is no room for social media oversharing. Before many employers will even think about settling with a current or former employee, they will insist upon the employee maintaining complete confidentiality over the settlement. However, reluctant employers will often wonder whether these confidentiality provisions are even enforceable. A recent decision from a Florida court says, “Yes.”

The case involved the $80,000 settlement of a private school’s former headmaster’s lawsuit alleging age discrimination. Four days after the parties signed the settlement agreement, the headmaster’s daughter published a Facebook post stating, among other things, that her father had won his age discrimination case against the school, that the settlement would fund a vacation to Europe, and that the school should “suck it.” After learning of this post, the school refused to pay the settlement funds, claiming that the headmaster violated the settlement agreement’s confidentiality provision, which read:

“13. Confidentiality…[T]he 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 Plaintiffs [sic] portion of the settlement Payments.”

While the lower level court concluded that neither the headmaster’s disclosure of the agreement to his daughter nor the daughter’s Facebook posting breached the confidentiality provision, the Florida appellate court disagreed. It found an unmistakable breach of confidentiality, by his own admission, the headmaster had told his daughter, who was not identified in the agreement, about the settlement. She then broadcast its existence to 1,200 Facebook friends, many of whom were either current or former students of the school. Based on the language of the confidentiality provision, the appeals court concluded the headmaster could not disclose any information about either the existence or the terms of the settlement to anyone other than those expressly named in the provision. It further found that violation of the confidentiality provision meant the school was not obligated to pay the headmaster, since his entitlement to settlement proceeds depended on his compliance with this provision.

Employers would be well-advised to review any confidentiality provisions included in their standard separation and settlement agreements to make sure the terms have teeth. Employers should consider conditioning severance or settlement payments on compliance with the applicable confidentiality provision and policing a former employee’s compliance with the terms of the agreement, perhaps through periodic Google searches. These revisions could be worthwhile to both manage the employer’s exposure to the consequences of potential breaches, as well as to prevent unnecessary payments of settlement funds where a breach has occurred.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services