The recent Employment Tribunal decision in Croxall and Others v BBC has brought fresh attention to the enforceability of settlement agreements where employment is ongoing. This equal pay dispute, involving four high-profile BBC journalists, highlights the complex intersection of employment law and the ability of settlement agreements to waive future claims.
The claimants - Martine Croxall, Kasia Madera, Annita McVeigh, and Karin Giannone - alleged ongoing pay inequality with a male comparator. However, the Tribunal struck out their equal pay claims on the grounds that these were barred by settlement agreements entered into in 2020. Importantly, the Tribunal concluded that even though two of the settlement agreements did not contain express wording waiving future claims, the claims were nonetheless precluded.
This decision is now being appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), with significant implications for both employers and employees regarding the scope and enforceability of settlement agreements.
Settlement agreements are a crucial tool in resolving workplace disputes, including equal pay claims. They allow parties to "draw a line" under specific claims, providing finality and avoiding prolonged litigation. However, the enforceability of such agreements, particularly regarding their ability to waive future claims, depends on clear drafting and adherence to statutory requirements.
In Croxall and Others, the claimants had settled earlier equal pay claims in 2020, receiving increased salaries and back pay. Two of the agreements explicitly waived the right to bring future claims arising from ongoing pay disparities. The other two agreements lacked such explicit language but stated that claims "relating to any period up to the date of signing" were settled.
The Tribunal determined that the claimants were estopped from bringing their new equal pay claims, applying established principles of contractual interpretation:
In all four cases, the claimants wanted to bring identical claims (albeit based on alleged continuing pay disparity). The Tribunal held that the claims related to the same underlying facts: like work with the same comparator, whose pay had not changed except for standard percentage increases applied across all staff. This continuity meant that the claims were not based on "new facts". The Tribunal found they were prevented by the terms of their settlement agreements from bringing the new claims.
The claimants have now confirmed they will be appealing the Tribunal's decision.
This case highlights the importance of carefully drafted settlement agreements to ensure clarity and enforceability. Employers seeking to settle disputes comprehensively should:
We will monitor the progress of the appeal and continue to report on developments.