Mr C Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd: What does the law say about employees who fall asleep at work?
Employee falls asleep at work and is unfairly dismissed; explore lessons for employers on investigations, mitigation, and proportionality.
Read More
In the recent case of Bathgate -v- Technip UK and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Equality Act 2010 does not allow for the settlement of future discrimination claims that are unknown at the time of entering into a settlement agreement.
29 November 2022
Case Study
The claimant, who was aged over 61, signed a settlement agreement as part of a voluntary redundancy package. The settlement agreement included enhanced redundancy and notice entitlements, and also an additional sum calculated by reference to a collective agreement. Notably, there was no requirement in the collective agreements for additional payments to those over 61.
When that change was communicated to the claimant, he sought to bring an age discrimination claim. In response to his claim, the employer argued that the claim had been compromised by the settlement agreement and so it could not proceed at the employment tribunal.
Case Study
The employment tribunal sided with the employer as it concluded that the settlement agreement included a waiver of “all claims…of whatever nature (whether past, present or future)”.
The case was appealed and the EAT allowed the claimant’s appeal on this point. While the claimant had signed away a long list of claims, including age discrimination claims, the EAT did not accept that this identified the particular claim as required by section 147 of the Equality Act 2010.
Section 147 allows employment claims to be compromised by way of a settlement agreement that “relates to a particular complaint.” Lord Summers (who heard the claim in the EAT) was of the view that the use of those words demonstrated that when passing the legislation, Parliament anticipated the existence of an actual complaint or circumstances where the grounds for complaint existed. Unfortunately for the claimant, the appeal also concerned a jurisdictional point in which he was unsuccessful, and for this reason the EAT ruled that the claim could not succeed.
This case highlights that it is only possible to waive statutory employment claims when an actual complaint exists or circumstances exist that may give to grounds for a complaint. In this case, the circumstances giving rise to the age discrimination claim only came to light after signing a settlement agreement and therefore could not be waived under the agreement.
As a result of this finding, employers may see a change of direction and possibly an increase of litigation on the validity of waivers, which emphasises the importance of carefully drafted settlement agreements.
Contact Us
For assistance negotiating and writing settlement agreements, contact our team on 01332 226 155 or complete the form below.
Related Services
Knowledge
Employee falls asleep at work and is unfairly dismissed; explore lessons for employers on investigations, mitigation, and proportionality.
Read MoreHow employers can handle whistleblowing effectively to reduce risk and prevent escalation, drawing lessons from the Argence-Lafon case.
Read MoreExplore lessons from the Ritchie V Goom Electrical Ltd case on managing conflicting workstyles and age diversity in modern offices.
Read MoreThursday
27
November
Join our expert-led webinar on the Employment Rights Act and discover what every HR professional needs to know before it takes effect.
Book your placeA clear roadmap from our Employment & HR Law team on upcoming Employment Rights Bill changes employers need to prepare for.
Read moreNorman v Lidl: Redundancy scoring based on degree requirement found to be indirect age discrimination, costing the employer over £50,000.
Read MoreA Tribunal ruling may end the two-year limit on backdated holiday pay claims, creating major risks for employers.
Read MoreKennedy v Hendy Group highlights the importance of supporting employees in redundancy and exploring alternative roles fairly.
Read MoreTeacher unfairly dismissed due to trade union activity and disability. The Tribunal awarded £370K in this landmark case.
Read MoreWatson v Roke Manor Research Ltd shows how non-verbal managerial behaviour can amount to discrimination and have legal risks for employers.
Read MoreCan external HR consultants be held liable for dismissal decisions? We review Handa v Station Hotel & Others for key lessons.
Read MoreEAT confirms employers can avoid liability for harassment if they take reasonable steps like EDI training and reinforcing workplace values.
Read MoreScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top
On Monday 29 September, Flint Bishop successfully completed the acquisition of the entire business of Lupton Fawcett LLP. You have been forwarded to the page most relevant to your visit.
Please feel free to explore our website and learn more about our legal services and professionals, including those who have recently joined us from Lupton Fawcett.