This Dumb Teenager Cost Her Dad $80,000 With One Braggy Facebook Post

teen facebook postIn today’s episode of “Oh my god are you freaking kidding me?,” a teenager managed to cost her family $80,000 with one 23-word Facebook update. This elegant young miss took to Facebook to announce her father’s victory against his former employer after winning a settlement concerning age discrimination. She wrote:

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

Let’s just start with a slow clap for her use of the all caps “SUCK IT.” Nothing cuts to the core of someone like dropping some European vacay knowledge on them and punctuating it with a “suck it,” especially in its capital iteration. I would hate to meet this girl in a dark alley rap battle.

While the teen in question certainly schooled The Gulliver School and all Facebook users, she ignored a somewhat important factor when it comes to legal matters. As The Cut points out, “as is usual in an age-discrimination settlement, all parties agreed to a confidentiality clause.” Talking about the settlement nullifies the whole thing. That Facebook post cost her father the $80,000 he won in the settlement. Yikes.

I understand that it’s everybody’s first instinct to take to Facebook or Twitter whenever something bad, good, scary, boring, mundane, or inconsequential happens, regardless of whether or not anyone in the world gives a shit. I’m not on any high horse here–I once took a seflie while peeing and put it on the internet to make a point. But I suppose this is as good a reminder as any that we all need to be more careful about what we flippantly put online, and also that teenagers are truly the worst.

Photo: Shutterstock

Share This Post:
    • Lindsey Conklin

      the most expensive suck it, ever. think before you make fb statuses!

    • elle

      Wow, I’m sure telling her alone would have been NBD but why would she brag about it on Facebook? She wasn’t even involved. Ugh stupid. Plus the fam had been awarded attorney fees that they will now have to pay….

      • brebay

        Yeah, no one would have known he’d breached if she’d kept it to herself. But the NDC in this particular case voids only the damage award, not the attorney’s fees, small comfort, though.

    • Guest

      Hmm, I’m not entirely sure I agree with this. Assuming she wasn’t involved in the litigation, I’m not sure her parents should be held responsible. Yes, it was wrong to do, but I’m not sure her parents should be paying the consequences.

      • Guest

        Ahh, but that is the point. By signing a confidentiality agreement, the dad or parents, agreed not to disclose the terms to anyone. They told her, she told the world. The parents broke the agreement, sucks but that is why they have confidentiality agreements and why they should be read carefully.

      • Ana

        The point of a non-disclosure agreement is that the parties cannot tell ANYONE about the terms of the settlement, including the daughter. Dad breached the agreement by telling the daughter. She publicized his breach.

    • Tinyfaeri

      Somehow I don’t think she’s going to Europe this summer anymore…

    • aliceblue

      Guess who isn’t going to Europe this summer? It’s o.k. though, since she’ll need to work full time in order to cover the tuition that her parents may not want to pay anymore.

    • Crusty Socks

      Not knowing the details, but if the breach of the NDC voids the entire settlement, the dad may be able to reinstate his lawsuit.

      Of course, I’m sure the other side had smart lawyers who phrased the NDC to keep the settlement alive.

      • MellyG

        Most NDC agreements i’ve drafted would be worded to waive the right to reinstate the lawsuit. Sucks to be the dad – I bet the daughter is NOT having a happy go lucky home life right now!

      • brebay

        Yes, there’s generally a dismissal with prejudice filed, which means he cannot re-file the case. He’s just screwed.

    • Jillian

      I guess daddy shouldn’t have been so fast to tell his daughter the result of the lawsuit. Maybe give it a few weeks or months next time you are involved in winning a lawsuit or just swear her to secrecy next time while really emphasizing the no social media talk part.

    • March

      Oh look, another tragic instance of affluenza.

    • brebay

      22 is not a teenager.

      • Alicia

        It doesn’t mention her age in the article, where does it say she is 22?

      • brebay

        She was born in 1991, so she’s either 22 or 23, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Where does it say that? Uh…there’s this thing called a search engine…

      • Alicia

        No need to be a smart ass, it was a genuine question as I wasn’t sure exactly where you got your information from given it wasn’t mentioned in this article (or any others I’ve seen) and I have no reason to search her age.

      • MERKIN

        Ahh. I’m not the only one…don’t you know you’re an idiot if you disagree with her? :-)

    • MERKIN

      So wait…do we know for sure if the settlement was voided because of this Facebook post? All I see here is that The Cut pointed out that all parties agreed to a confidentiality clause. I don’t see any real knowledge here of the $80,000 actually being taken back from the father…

      • brebay

        It’s voided because he told his daughter. She’s part of “anyone” unless the agreement specifically excluded her, which it did not.

      • MERKIN

        I get all that…I get the fact that the confidentiality clause says something is supposed to happen. However, there’s no evidence that anything DID happen. I think the author should have made it clear that the clause was violated so the money, technically, should go back to the school. I think the author should not say that the daughter actually caused the money to be taken back from the father. We don’t know what ended up happening with it– we just know the clause was violated.

      • MERKIN

        Edit: I don’t even know if that makes sense. All I’m saying is that it’s like if the author said that a car ran a red light, and because that’s against the law, the driver of the car got a ticket. Yes, it’s illegal– yes, we know the consequences, which are pretty certain. But we don’t know that the driver actually GOT the ticket.

      • brebay

        Oh my god, what do you not get? The clause says the petitioner (Snay) can’t tell ANYONE of the existence or terms of the agreement. He concedes he told his daughter. That’s a breach. He’s been sued under contract theory. Perhaps this is all just above your pay grade. What DID happen is that he said something he had contracted not to say, and then admitted he said it. Go make me a latte, airhead.

      • MERKIN

        Why the harsh words? I’m confused as to why you’re calling me an airhead or getting so upset. We are on the internet debating a topic…no need to get so angry

      • MERKIN

        BTW, I’ve seen you post on Mommyish and you’re always so level-headed and make intelligent comments. It’s a shame.

    • brebay

      There’s a similar, interesting issue going on here in the midwest with the “ag gag” suits re: factory farm settlements for polluting neighboring lands. There were settlements made, and confidentiality agreements signed. The issue is, the plaintiffs were some adults, and some children, including very young children, who suffered health issues from the pollution. So the issue still undetermined is, since a three-year-old can’t enter into a contract, can this be enforced when the kids turn 18 and talk about it? It’ll be interesting to see what the courts do with that.