Claims Caught By Settlement Agreement Wording
The case of Arvunescu v Quick Release looks at whether an employee had waived his rights to claim victimisation by entering into a settlement agreement.
Arvunescu v Quick Release
Mr Arvunescu was employed by Quick Release for a short period of time between May and June 2014. When his employment ended, he bought a race discrimination claim against the company. His claim was settled when the parties entered into a COT3 agreement on 1 March 2018.
In May 2018 Mr Arvunescu brought a new victimisation claim against Quick Release. He alleged that in February 2018 Quick Release had prevented him getting a job with a subsidiary company in Germany on the basis that he had previously brought a discrimination claim against Quick Release.
Quick Release argued that Mr Arvunescu could not bring the claim because it fell within the scope of the COT3 agreement. The COT3 contained fairly standard settlement wording waiving all claims "arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with [Mr Arvunescu's] employment with [Quick Release], its termination or otherwise."
The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal found in favour of Quick Release and Mr Arvunescu appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Arvunescu's appeal. They held that the wording of the COT3 was not ambiguous and the victimisation claim did arise indirectly in connection with Mr Arvunescu's employment with Quick Release. The Court of Appeal held that therefore his claim had already been settled under the terms of the COT3.
Learning Points
It is always important for employers to carefully consider the contents of any settlement agreement and clearly understand what claims are being waived. Employers will usually want to prepare the first draft of any agreement.
In this case Mr Arvunescu knew about his potential claim before entering into the settlement agreement. The outcome might have been different had the alleged act of victimisation taken place after the COT3 was entered into or had Mr Arvunescu not been aware of the claim at the time of entering into the COT3.
