She didn't write the post - but endorsing it was enough
A karaoke company worker has been penalized for endorsing a social media attack on her former employer - weeks after signing a deal that said she wouldn't.
The worker had been employed by Kuvarji Entertainment Limited (KEL), which runs a karaoke services business called Nakioke. After a workplace dispute, the parties went to mediation and signed a settlement on October 11, 2024, overseen by a mediator from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
The deal came with two rules that mattered. One required the settlement terms and everything discussed in mediation to stay confidential. The other was blunt: "Neither party will make disparaging comments about one another, including on social media."
Both sides confirmed they understood the agreement was binding and enforceable.
Then came November 27, 2024.
A third party posted on social media about KEL's Nakioke business by name. The Employment Relations Authority later described the post as "plainly disparaging" of KEL and one of its officers, containing "serious" allegations of wrongdoing.
The worker jumped into the comments. She identified herself as the person written about in the post and described how the alleged events had affected her. When the original poster thanked her for speaking out, the worker replied: "...much love Kuini." She added: "...God saw me through it. No more tears or hurt..."
She also shared the post on her own social media.
KEL brought the matter to the Authority, seeking a compliance order - a direction for the worker to stick to the settlement - along with removal of the posts, a penalty, and costs. The worker did not file a reply or any evidence. She did not appear. The Authority was satisfied she knew about the proceedings, noting the parties had attended further mediation on August 18, 2026.
On the confidentiality clause, the Authority drew a line. The settlement required the "terms of settlement" to stay confidential - but it did not go as far as keeping the "fact of settlement" itself secret. There was no direct evidence the worker had disclosed the settlement terms to anyone, and the settlement did not even define the workplace problem it resolved. No breach of the confidentiality clause was found.
The non-disparagement clause was a different story.
To "disparage," the Authority noted, means to bring into discredit, degrade, or speak critically of someone. A comment does not need to be untruthful to count. And it can be implied, not just stated outright.
The third-party post was "plainly disparaging." By endorsing those statements - commenting in support and identifying herself - the worker breached the non-disparagement clause. Sharing the post amounted to re-publishing it.
KEL pushed for the maximum penalty: $10,000. The Authority landed well short.
In weighing things up, the Authority acknowledged the worker's conduct was deliberate - she had confirmed she understood the settlement was binding. The comments were on social media, meaning they could circulate widely. And the worker had not acknowledged the breach or tried to undo the damage.
But she was not the author of the original post. She had responded "at a time when she was vulnerable, regardless of the reason(s) for that vulnerability." It was a one-off in November 2024 - no prior or later breaches were claimed or proven. And the Authority was not satisfied KEL's reputational damage was significantly caused by the worker's conduct, noting other third parties with ties to KEL were also making disparaging statements independently.
The penalty: $500, split evenly between KEL and the Crown. The worker was also ordered to delete the post and related comments from all social media accounts in her name or control, comply immediately with the settlement, and pay $500 in costs plus $71.55 to reimburse the Authority's filing fee.
For HR teams drafting settlement agreements, the case spells out a practical reality: endorsing or sharing someone else's disparaging post carries the same weight as writing one yourself. One comment, weeks after a deal is signed, can trigger enforcement.
