When Confidentiality Means Stay Off Facebook

Many people may have caught this story from Yahoo headlines, Google News, or even on Twitter.  Every attorney and litigant should learn from the mistakes of Patrick Snay.

Patrick Snay brought discrimination and retaliation claims against Gulliver Schools where he served as headmaster until his contract was not renewed.  Gulliver Schools and Snay reached a confidential settlement agreement.  Pursuant to this agreement, $10,000 went to Snay as back pay, $80,000 went to Snay via 1099 (probably compensatory damages), and $60,000 went to Snay’s attorneys.  The confidentiality provision stated that Snay would not disclose the terms of the settlement to anyone besides his wife, attorneys or other professional advisers.    This common language in the settlement agreement became a major stumbling block for Snay.  Snay has a college-age daughter who also previously attended Gulliver.  Snay and his wife shared with their daughter that the case was settled and they were happy with the result.  One would think this is harmless.  Of course, Snay would tell his wife and his daughter is part of the family.  The daughter who apparently is quite popular with 1200 friends shared her parents’ good fortune on Facebook by typing:

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer.  SUCK IT.

It only took Gulliver four days to contact Snay and tell him that he was in breach of the agreement.

Gulliver paid Snay’s attorneys the $60,000 mentioned above.  With respect to the $80,000, Gulliver argued that Snay was in breach and withheld the funds.  Snay sought to enforce the settlement and he prevailed before the trial court.  The trial judge ruled that neither Snay’s comments to his daughter nor his daughter’s Facebook comments constituted a breach of the confidentiality agreement.   Gulliver could have left things alone, written a check and let the Snay family go on vacation.  Instead, Gulliver appealed.

The appellate court ruled in Gulliver’s favor reversing the decision of the trial court.  The appellate court noted that absent evidence that the parties intended any special meaning to the terms of the contract, the unambiguous language is to be given a realistic interpretation based on the plain, everyday meaning conveyed by the words.  The court then noted that neither Snay nor his wife could disclose to anyone, except their lawyers or other professionals, the terms of the agreement.  The court ruled that Snay’s conversation with his daughter stating that “it was settled and we are happy with the results” established a breach of the confidentiality provision.   The court added that Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do.

Thus, another example of loose lips sinking ships.  This decision should serve as a warning that attorneys must advise their clients to honor the terms of a confidentiality agreement.  In an ordinary sense, certainly the idea of discussing the matter with other family members would seem harmless.  This case shows that simple words such as “we settled” and “we are happy” are sufficient to lead to a breach of the agreement.   This teachers that close attention needs to be paid to familiar provisions of the settlement agreement.    Even the simple statement, “we are happy” could lead to the forfeiture of thousands of dollars.  Victory laps following the signing of a settlement agreement are never a good idea.

 

High School Terminates Woman Over Facebook Photo

Boyfriend Who Appeared in Picture Remains Employed

While surfing through the news this evening, I came across an interesting story that may form the basis for a lawsuit.  A man and woman were employed by a high school in Pocatello, Idaho.  (Am I the only one thinking of the B-52s right about now-one).  At this point, I should use caution in my grammar.  The man is employed by Pocatello High School.  The woman was employed by the Pocatello High School.  The man coached the football team, over the years won more than a few championships, and is in the high school football coach hall of fame.  The woman was the coach of the woman’s basketball team.  They are engaged to one another and during a family gathering over the summer someone took a photograph in which the man is holding the woman’s breast.  The photo was posted on the woman’s Facebook page.  Within 24 hours, the woman removed the photo from her page.  Nevertheless, the damage was done.  The school fired the woman and reprimanded the man.  While the man was guilty of holding, the school maintained that the woman had engaged in immoral behavior.  The school is not criticizing the woman for the picture.   Rather, it terminated her for posting the photograph on Facebook.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite the public outrage surrounding the story, the school is asserting that it made the right decision to fire the woman and reprimand the man.   A grievance of the woman’s dismissal is pending.

It is not clear whether the woman would prevail in a discrimination case.  From the comments that I have read, if this case were submitted to the court of public opinion, Pocatello High School would be in big trouble.  In cyberspace, everyone has an opinion and I comments supporting the high school are few and far between.

Sex or gender discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because of that person’s sex.  The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.  If you need to talk to a labor and employment attorney about discrimination or wrongful termination, call Rich Bradford at (813) 413-2402.

 

 

Race Discrimination Claims Against Paula Deen Dismissed

This probably will not be my last post on the Paula Deen case.  In an interesting, if not predictable, development, U.S. District Judge William T. Moore dismissed the racial discrimination portion of Lisa Jackson’s lawsuit.

In case you missed it, the Paula Deen story was a hot topic in the news and internet during June and July. In the spring of 2012, a former manager at one of Deen’s restaurants brought a lawsuit against the restaurant, Paula Deen and her brother Bubba.  Jackson alleged that she was the victim of sexual harassment by Bubba.  In addition to harassment claims, Jackson, who is white, brought claims of racial discrimination against the defendants who allegedly made racial slurs about African Americans.  Fast forward to May 2013, and Paula Deen has her deposition taken.  Paula Deen admits using the “N-word” in the past, approximately 25-30 years ago.  She also admits that jokes were told at work – black jokes, Jewish jokes, redneck jokes.  To be fair to Paula, there was no indication that she told the jokes.  See Paula’s deposition transcript here.

Sometime in June 2013, Deen’s deposition transcript hits the press.  Many labeled Paula Deen a racist and threatened to boycott the Food Network.  The Food Network decided not to renew Deen’s contract, which was due to expire June 30, 2013.  Deen’s fans are upset and have decided to boycott the Food Network.  Later, Wal Mart released Paula Deen and K-Mart, and Smithfield Foods, Home Depot, etc. etc. all released Paula Deen.    Some guess that the impact of these severed relationships is in the neighborhood of $12 million.  By the way, in the last week of June, Paula Deen was bigger news than the Supreme Court’s decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8.

When Jackson filed her lawsuit it was reported that she was seeking $1.2 million.  Understand that I am not trying to play Monday morning QB, but if Deen’s attorneys had convinced her to settle for $750-900k, she probably would not have lost her $12 million empire.  Remember this all started when Jackson quit because she alleged sexual harassment by Bubba.  Moreover, the sexual harassment claim is viable.  Paula testified that Bubba would look at porn at work.   Because the case did not settle, Deen’s deposition became public, Deen has been labeled a racist, and Corporate America has decided to distance itself from her.

Ironically, the judge dismissed the race discrimination case.  Near the end of a twenty page decision on race discrimination, Judge Moore ruled:

Plaintiff is not an aggrieved party under Title VII because her interests are not arguably sought to be protected by that statute.  At best, Plaintiff is an accidental victim of the alleged racial discrimination.  There are no allegations that Defendant Hier’s racially offensive comments were either directed toward Plaintiff or made with the intent to harass her.

See Judge Moore’s August 12, Order.

For whatever its worth, the lawyers on both sides are working very hard on this case.   There is little doubt that the next move by either side will generate further interest in the Paula Deen saga.

If you have questions about employment discrimination or labor and employment law, give Rich Bradford a call at (813) 413-2402.

Legal Stuff:   The information on this blog is not legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult with an attorney if you have specific legal questions. Hiring an attorney is an important, personal decision which should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, contact us and we will send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

 

Paula Deen’s Deposition Transcript

What did Paula Deen say to Ms. Jackson’s attorneys? In case you are interested, here is a link to Paula Deen’s Deposition Transcript.  By the way, the Food Network decided that it will not renew her contract, which expires at the end of this month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Posts:  Paula Deen Sexual Harassment Update – “They’re Just Jokes;” Sexual Harassment: Managing the Mess Created By Paula Deen’s Bubba

 

Paula Deen Sexual Harassment Update – “They’re Just Jokes”

“Want to hear a funny joke”

A year ago, I posted on problems at Paula Deen’s restaurants.  One of her former managers brought a lawsuit raising allegations of racial discrimination, racially insensitive language, and sexual harassment.  Immediately after the allegations came to the surface, Deen’s attorneys denied any wrongdoing.  Soon thereafter, Deen’s popularity continued.  Going through supermarkets you see her on the cover of magazines.  Personally, I do not watch cooking shows, but I suppose she has continued to make television appearances.

Now, nearly a year later recent reports suggests that there is merit to the former manager’s claims.  The manager’s attorneys have taken the deposition of Ms. Deen and in the course of the deposition, she has made shocking admissions.  She indicated that she was aware that her brother, a business partner, is into porn, her brother has problems with alcohol, and he uses cocaine.  This is not a very good combination if you are a business owner.

Ms. Deen also admitted to using the “N Word,” by responding “yes of course.”  I suppose she was suggesting that everyone talks that way.  No Paula, we don’t.  She testified that she tells black jokes, Jewish jokes, and redneck jokes, then added that she cannot determine what offends another person.

In writing this, I am certainly not advocating ultra sensitivity, but she has to be more intelligent than this if she wants to continue to run a business.  Many corporations will devote an entire day annually training their supervisors and managers on discrimination and harassment.  Unfortunately, Ms. Deen has failed to read the memo.

Given these facts,  (and these are now facts, not mere allegations) I wonder how her attorneys were unable to persuade her to reach a settlement with the former manager.

Do you need an attorney to discuss discrimination, harassment or labor and employment law, call Rich Bradford at (813) 413-2402.

See also:  Paula Deen Admits Use of N-Word & Making Racial Jokes at Deposition;Sexual Harassment: Managing the Mess Created By Paula Deen’s “Bubba”;Paula Deen Racist Deposition Stuns the Web

 

Retaliation Lawsuit Filed Against Janitorial Company

Cynthia Williams, an African American woman, worked for a company called Paramount Janitorial Services.  Paramount Janitorial Services is a Virginia based “full-service” janitorial company.  Williams complained to the owner of the company stating that her supervisor made racial slurs and threats, including calling her the “N” word and threatening to beat her with his “n***** stick.”

At first blush, it appears that Ms. Williams followed the steps to protect herself from further harassment.  In the response, the owner could have taken prompt remedial action by counseling the supervisor, separating Ms. Williams from her supervisor, and/or firing the supervisor.  At this stage, the actions of the owner are unknown.   If Ms. Williams’ version of the events is true, Paramount Janitorial Services failed to take prompt remedial action.  Two days after complaining to the owner, the supervisor fired Ms. Williams.

After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a retaliation lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Williams.   To prevail, Ms. Williams must show that she engaged in activity protected by discrimination law, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and that the adverse action was causally related to the protected activity.  The EEOC is seeking to recover back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages in this case.

Unfortunately, cases like these occur more often than we are ready to admit.  The actions that the owner should have taken to avoid suit are spelled out above.  If you have questions about retaliation or other employment law issues, call Rich Bradford at (813) 413-2402.

 

 

Tampa EEOC Settles Retaliation Suit with OfficeMax for $85,000

A Florida OfficeMax recently settled retaliation claims filed by the EEOC on behalf of an employee for $85,000.  In this case, an OfficeMax store manager fired an employee, who later complained that the manager fired him because he is Hispanic.  The company required the manager to rehire the employee.  According to the lawsuit, the manager, however, made life difficult for the employee by creating reasons to terminate him and trying to force him to resign.  The employee went to the EEOC who investigated his claims against OfficeMax.   After the parties failed to reach a pre-suit resolution, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in Tampa federal court on behalf of the employee.

Besides reaching a monetary settlement, the EEOC also obtained injunctive relief.  OfficeMax agreed that over the next four years it will seek to reach more Hispanic and African American applicants in the Sarasota/Bradenton area.  It also agreed to provide training for its managers and human resources personnel on racial harassment and retaliation.

Although Florida is an at-will employment state – i.e., an employer can fire you for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all – both federal and state laws protect employees against discrimination and retaliation.  Because an employee’s economic livelihood depends on his/her employment, the law prohibits employers from disciplining or discharging employees for attempting to enforce their rights under the law.

Rich Bradford at Bradford & Bradford is available to answer any questions that you may have concerning retaliation or employment law in general.   Call us at (813) 413-2402.

 

County Property Appraiser Settles Sexual Harassment Case for $135,000

Last spring, the office of the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser was rocked by the sexual harassment claims of Carolyn Filippone.  Although the case had been pending for nearly two years, it did not make front page news until Property Appraiser, Rob Turner, fired his paramour, Carolyn Filippone.

Turner made a huge mistake by firing her as her attorneys were contemplating whether to move forward with a lawsuit.  Prior to the termination decision, Filippone’s claims were limited to sexual harassment.  Thus, the question was whether she could advance a meritorious sexual harassment case against her boss although she had an affair with him.  At this stage, this case had strengths and weaknesses for both parties.   After the EEOC dismissed her case, Filippone had 3 months to decide whether to file a lawsuit.  The decision became a lot easier when Turner fired Filippone before the expiration of the 90 days.  Now Filippone was able to add a retaliation claim to her sexual harassment case.  See Tampa Woman Considers Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claims Against County Official; Retaliation Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court in Property Appraiser Case; Filippone complaint.

After a few short months, the Property Appraiser’s office decided that settlement was the prudent course of action.  According to the Tampa Bay Times, the parties attended a mediation conference and settled for $135,000.

Sexual harassment occurs when one employee makes continued, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, to another employee, against his or her wishes.  Retaliation occurs when an employer takes some form of adverse action against an employee for asserting his rights under harassment or discrimination law.

If you have questions about sexual harassment or retaliation, you may call Rich Bradford at (813) 413-2402.

Bradford & Bradford’s practice areas include, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Estate Planning, Civil Litigation, Employment Law, and Family Law.

 

 

IHOP Settles Sexual Harassment Action With EEOC

 And yet another, sexual harassment case for the International House of Pancakes (IHOP).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Albuquerque, New Mexico recently settled a sexual harassment case for $1,000,000 that was brought on behalf of a group of women, including teenagers, working for IHOP restaurants.  The harassment included sexual comments, sexual innuendo, and unwanted touching. The lawsuit alleged that the harassment caused some of the women to quit their jobs. 

As a result of the settlement, IHOP is required to implement policies and procedures that will provide its employees a work environment free of harassment and retaliation.   As a side note, I would be shocked to find out that IHOP did not already have such policies in place.  The real question is whether they were enforcing those policies.

Sexual harassment occurs when one employee subjects another to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.  

Not all offensive conduct rises to the level of actionable sexual harassment.  If you have questions regarding sexual harassment, you may call Rich Bradford at (813) 413-2402. 

 

Carolyn Filippone v. Rob Turner – Copy of Lawsuit

Exactly what does a federal lawsuit look like?  Below is a copy of the lawsuit that Carolyn Filippone filed against Rob Turner in his official capacity as the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser.  The allegations are short, simple and to the point.

Filippone v. Turner – Federal Complaint