The Court of Appeal has held in Arvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd that an employee's claim under section 112 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) that his former employer had knowingly helped another company to victimise him because he had brought a discrimination claim on termination of his employment fell within the scope of a COT3 settlement agreement.
The claimant was employed by Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd (QRA Ltd) between May and June 2014. When his employment terminated he brought a race discrimination claim which was compromised by way of a COT3 agreement entered into on 1 March 2018. The COT3 agreement purported to settle all claims that the claimant "has or may have" against QRA Ltd arising "directly or indirectly out of or in connection with" his employment with QRA Ltd, even if he was unaware of any such claim at the date of the agreement. In May 2018 the claimant brought a new claim against QRA Ltd alleging victimisation. He had applied for a post with a wholly-owned subsidiary of QRA Ltd in Germany, and alleged that QRA Ltd (due to its close links with the subsidiary) was responsible for him being rejected for the post (in February 2018), and that the reason for the rejection was that he had brought a race discrimination claim against QRA Ltd.
At a preliminary hearing, an employment tribunal found that the claimant's victimisation claim fell within the scope of the COT3 agreement and had been settled by the parties. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed, and so, on appeal, did the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that while the claim did not arise directly or indirectly "out of" the claimant's employment with QRA Ltd, it nevertheless arose indirectly "in connection with" it. The purpose of the COT3 agreement was to settle claims connected with the claimant's employment that existed as at the date of the agreement (1 March 2018) whether or not they were known about at that date. The claim alleging a breach of section 112 EqA 2010 in January or February 2018 was a claim against QRA Ltd that was connected with the claimant's employment with QRA Ltd and that existed at the date of the settlement. The purpose underlying the COT3 agreement was to settle all such existing claims.
Take note: In this case it was clear that the COT3 wording covered the claimant's victimisation claim against the respondent, as the claim existed at the time of the settlement on 1 March 2018. It's important to remember that in the recent case of Bathgate v Technip UK Ltd and ors it was held that any claims of which an individual is unaware at the time of entering into a settlement agreement cannot be covered by any waiver.
