Last week I wrote about the EEOC’s lawsuit against CVS based on its severance agreements. One of the EEOC’s objections to severance is a confidentiality provision. The agency is of the position that confidentiality provisions prevent employees from communicating with the agency. This week we have a case out of Florida concluding that a former employee’s breach of the confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement requires him to return the funds to the employer.
Patrick Snay’s contract with a private school was not renewed. As a result, he sued alleging age discrimination. The parties settled for $90,000, with an additional $60,000 going to Mr. Snay’s lawyers. But the agreement included a confidentiality provision. Mr. Snay could tell only his wife about the terms of the agreement.
However, claiming that his daughter suffered emotional scars from attending the school, Mr. Snay told his daughter about the settlement. (Really?) After she learned about the money, she posted this on her Facebook account: “Momma and Papa Snay won the case against [the school. The school] is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT!”
The school did not appreciate the posting and took action to recover the money from Mr. Snay. This week, the court said Mr. Snay can’t keep the money; he had engaged in the very act the confidentiality provision was designed to prevent. Poor Mr. Snay. Poor daughter Snay who might see Europe from only a computer screen or foreign films on Netflix.
The real question is whether the lawyers will be compelled to return their money, and if so, whether they can recover it from Mr. Snay.