3 ms·
It's complicated. Very often the jury awards are subsequently slashed by appeals courts, so it's highly unlikely that the mother in the case you mentioned ever
by q1w2 5y ago
It's complicated. Very often the jury awards are subsequently slashed by appeals courts, so it's highly unlikely that the mother in the case you mentioned ever received $38MM.
It's also important to note, for OP, that non-disclosure agreements are standard in such cases. It should not be construed as an attempt for the company to cover up its actions and "continue killing children".
If I were OP, I would consult my lawyer about what specifically can and cannot be discussed. It might be that they simply don't want the father to talk about the settlement amount and the company's misconduct. That might still enable him to discuss/advocate in public more general safety practices for children and sanitation work with the city - while not being in violation of the agreement.
At the end of the day - the company isn't "forcing" him to sign the agreement. It's his choice. His family wants him to settle, as probably does his lawyer - because it's probably not worth the extra litigation.
- car_analogy 5y ago> It's also important to note, for OP, that non-disclosure agreements are standard in such cases. It should not be construed as an attempt for the company to cover up its actions and "continue killing children". Or, it should be construed that attempts to cover up actions are standard in such cases. Behavior does not become void of motive just because it is "standard": > Trying to hide the body is standard in murder cases. It should not be construed as an attempt of the killer to cover up their guilt.
- q1w2 5y agoThis is an overly-cynical take. As any lawyer can confirm, settlements almost ALWAYS contain non-disclosure clauses. The reason is that they cost the plaintiff nothing to sign, and provide the defendant with a limitation of any knock-on liability. It's just totally standard. You can think of it many ways. A settlement can be published in the newspaper causing bad PR for the company, even if they've fixed the issue. It can motivate copy-cat plaintiffs to stage fake "incidents" to try to extort money from the company. It can also cause regulatory inquiries and/or investigations. It can cause other companies to make legal claims on tangentially related issues they might have with the defendant. You'd be amazed what paper thin lawsuits are filed sometimes. Keeping settlements private is just absolutely normal to keep the vultures away.
- car_analogy 5y agoHalf the consequences that you cite in defense of non-disclosures, are perfectly legitimate issues for the company to have to deal with. Why should they be spared bad PR or regulatory inquiries, if they're based on true claims? It still looks like cover-up to me, no matter how standard. Something is not clear to me, however: Are you implying a non-disclosure agreement could forbid contacting the relevant regulatory authority? Or merely that the media publicity could spur an investigation, where an individual informant would be ignored?
- q1w2 5y agoYou're missing the point. There are a myriad of reasons for the non-disclosure - some you agree with and some you don't. The point is that lawyers include it as a standard in nearly all kinds of agreements. ...it's not even limited to settlements. Regular contracts often have them. It's just normal business practice. It's done because, as you know, anything you say, no matter how innocent, can be used against you in a court of law - whether misconstrued or not. Thus lawyers almost always include a non-disclosure clause. This, on its own, should not lead you to believe the company is covering anything up. ...and to answer your last question, no, non-disclosure agreements do not prevent you from speaking to regulatory authorities.