Actions Have Consequences

Litigation being an action. Employment Discrimination Plaintiff Can’t Get Case Sealed After Settlement.

Stephanie Gilliard argued “that offers of employment have been rescinded after Google searches of her name revealed the events of this case, namely her surreptitious recordings of her co-workers.”

She filed a lawsuit, which was apparently dismissed “with prejudice.” (Meaning she can’t refile.) One of the things she did leading up to the suit was tape record a couple of supervisors. Now she’s upset because that is public knowledge.

2 thoughts on “Actions Have Consequences

  1. For quite a number of years following settlement in a W.C. case, I found it difficult to get hired. I had suspected why but it was when a prospective employer slipped up and let out the reason I was no longer considered that I found out. I got the attorneys from that W.C. to prevail upon the court to seal the records. I preferred to avoid the whole mess yet when my employer first said I had no injury then said I was faking it and refused to pay any of my mounting medical bills I decided to play hardball. My injuries were severe with a lengthy rehab due to my injuries brought by employer negligence.

    I didn’t bring the case although I was the plaintiff. When the treating physician asked if the injury happened at work and I answered in the affirmative, the ball got rolling, it was no longer under my control. That is how the law is written for w.C. cases.

    Would it matter who brought the case? Surely the employer would not bring legal action to find itself a defendant to the claim. In this case, the plaintiff was her own advocate. If she were harmed in a substantial way and previous discussions with a stubborn employer proved unfruitful she should bring legal action. I say this because I am empathetic to the difficulties in finding employment in the aftermath of a legal proceeding. I say this even though I am decidedly opposed to getting the courts involved.

    But, if the plaintiff was spiteful and vindictive, then forget her.


    • It might revolve around medical privacy, in your case. But that isn’t what was happening in the case described above. I’m no lawyer, so there’s no telling. Could be one judge vs another. Could be 1 state vs another…


Comments are closed.