Discrimination Claim Allowed to Proceed Notwithstanding Previous COT3 Agreement
The importance of clear and precise wording in COT3 and settlement agreements was highlighted in the recent case of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) v Brindley (the Claimant).
The Facts
The Claimant brought a disability discrimination claim before the Employment Tribunal (ET) (Claim 1).
Claim 1 related to the following events:
- DWP's failure to provide the Claimant with a disabled parking space, meaning that she had to park further away from the office
- This led to her being absent from work for two weeks with severe back pain
- She was given a final written warning in April 2014 for attendance. She argued that the warning resulted from DWP discriminating against her and refusing to acknowledge her disability
Claim 1 was settled in December 2014 under a COT3 agreement (Agreement). The Agreement also settled 'all other relevant claims arising from the facts of the proceedings up to and including the date this agreement [sic]'.
The Claimant brought a second disability discrimination claim in June 2015 (Claim 2). Claim 2 related to a second final written warning that had been imposed upon the Claimant in November 2014 (before the Agreement was entered into), again due to her attendance at work.
DWP asserted that Claim 2 was clearly a 'relevant claim' for the purposes of the Agreement and that as such, the Claimant was unable to bring the claim. The ET judge disagreed, holding that Claim 1 related to car parking and the warning issued in April 2014, whereas Claim 2 related to the warning issued in November 2014. Whilst the facts around Claim 2 had arisen before the Agreement was executed, this did not automatically mean that Claim 2 was a 'relevant claim' for the purposes of the COT3 agreement.
DWP appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The EAT upheld the ET's decision, holding that the Agreement had settled all claims arising from the particular factual matrix around Claim 1, which was different from the factual matrix around Claim 2.
Best Practice
This case highlights the importance of ensuring that express wording is included in a settlement agreement in order to settle all potential grounds of claim. It may be insufficient to rely on general wording regarding 'relevant claim', as was the case here. In addition, where general wording is included in settlement agreements, care should be taken not to unintentionally qualify any such wording.
In this case, had the Agreement contained alternative wording, for example settling 'all or any claims arising within the period to 11 December 2014', the result might have been different.