Publicity: The not-so-hidden cost of a lawsuit

And then you go and make it worse.

The Volokh Conspiracy posted last week about a Human Resources Business Partner who sued his former employer in federal court (Oregon).

I am in a charitable mood as I write this post, so I won't name the HR guy.

Anyway, he and his former employer finally settled their case. In 2018.

Last week, he asked the court to seal the records related to his lawsuit because . . .

. . . some search engines picked up his case and made it available over the internet in addition to Pacer, the electronic portal for federal court records. And employers are finding his lawsuit on the internet and are not hiring him. Also, they're getting access to confidential information about how much money he made at his job with this former employer.

The judge denied his motion to seal the court record because public court records are, like, public.

Y'all have heard of the Streisand Effect, right? That's when you try to hide something and, in the act of hiding, draw 1,000 times more attention to whatever it was you were trying to hide.


Eugene Volokh, who seems like a nice person, stuck to writing about the judge's decision denying the motion to seal and didn't get into any of the rest of the case.

But I am an employment lawyer, and I am not as nice as Eugene Volokh, so I went onto the federal court database and looked at most of the case.

The "confidential information" about the HR guy's salary that he wanted to keep confidential? That was in the lawsuit that the HR guy himself filed. Among other things, he was claiming sex discrimination with respect to his pay, and he contrasted his compensation with that of his female counterparts throughout his complaint. So, not only did he disclose his own compensation, but he also disclosed the compensation of his peers.

He also alleged in his own lawsuit that his employer fired him for disclosing confidential HR information. (He denied doing it, but he admitted that was the stated ground for his termination.)

And that's not all. I found quite a few more reasons why I, as an employer, would not want to hire this guy, and especially not in an HR capacity. The fact that he filed a lawsuit against his employer? Not necessarily the end of the world. Maybe the employer really was discriminating against him.

But if I were his prospective employer, I'd steer clear because of this:

  • Based on his own allegations in his own lawsuit, he seems to be someone who can't get along with anybody. Probably not so great a fit in HR, or as anybody's "business partner."
  • His first set of lawyers withdrew from representing him because of "irreconcilable differences."
  • After he was representing himself and his deposition had been rescheduled numerous times at his request, he cancelled the deposition the day before it was to take place. The lawyers for his employer asked the court to dismiss his lawsuit as a sanction. The judge refused, in part because he was pro se, but even so . . .! And she did find that his refusal to go forward with the deposition was "willful."

He finally got another lawyer, and the case was settled a few months afterward. In March 2018.

And now, three years after the settlement -- on April 13, 2021 -- he added to the public record his unsuccessful motion to seal the court records. In which he alleges that he can't get a job because his lawsuit and salary information are out there for everyone to see. Now his prospective employers have at least three more red flags:

  • It appears that he hasn't been working for three years or more.
  • He's one of those people who files motions in a case that has been over for three years.
  • In the three years since his case settled, it appears that his lawsuit came up in only three job interviews. Either he wasn't looking very hard for another job, or his lawsuit was not an issue for a large number of his prospective employers and he was rejected for other reasons.

(I should note that the HR guy filed his 2021 motion all on his own. He was no longer represented by the attorney who helped him get the settlement.)

Unhappy employees, I do hope you will think about this before you rush out to sue your employers. In the federal court system, and the systems of a growing number of states, court records can be accessed electronically. In addition to electronic access through the official court systems, it is very easy to get court decisions by doing a Google search, going on Westlaw, going to Justia.com, going to Facebook or Twitter, subscribing to a legal publication, and so on. Having to send a paralegal to courthouses in seven or eight remote county squares to get copies of your paper records is becoming a thing of the past.

Moreover, most employers hire background check professionals who can do these searches very efficiently. And some employers still do the searches themselves, which means they don't even have to worry about the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (The FCRA applies only to searches conducted by third parties.)

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but there it is.


  • Smiling older woman with short gray hair and glasses, wearing a dark gray cardigan over a black top and a beaded necklace, with arms confidently crossed. She has a warm, approachable demeanor and a professional presence against a transparent background.
    Of Counsel & Chief Legal Editor

    Robin also conducts internal investigations and delivers training for HR professionals, managers, and employees on topics such as harassment prevention, disability accommodation, and leave management.

    Robin is editor in chief ...

This is Constangy’s flagship law blog, founded in 2010 by Robin Shea, who is chief legal editor and a regular contributor. This nationally recognized blog also features posts from other Constangy attorneys in the areas of immigration, labor relations, and sports law, keeping HR professionals and employers informed about the latest legal trends.

Search

Get Updates By Email

Subscribe

Archives

Legal Influencer Lexology Badge ABA Web 100 Badge
Jump to Page

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When using this website, Constangy and certain third parties may collect and use cookies or similar technologies to enhance your experience. These technologies may collect information about your device, activity on our website, and preferences. Some cookies are essential to site functionality, while others help us analyze performance and usage trends to improve our content and features.

Please note that if you return to this website from a different browser or device, you may need to reselect your cookie preferences.

For more information about our privacy practices, including your rights and choices, please see our Privacy Policy. 

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Strictly Necessary Cookies are essential for the website to function, and cannot be turned off. We use this type of cookie for purposes such as security, network management, and accessibility. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do so, some parts of the site will not work. 

Functionality Cookies

Always Active

Functionality Cookies are used to enhance the functionality and personalization of this website. These cookies support features like embedded content (such as video or audio), keyword search highlighting, and remembering your preferences across pages—for example, your cookie choices or form inputs during submission.

Some of these cookies are managed by third-party service providers whose features are embedded on our site. These cookies do not store personal information and are necessary for certain site features to work properly.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek