COT3 agreement signed under duress: tribunal allows pregnancy discrimination claim to proceed
A stable lass who signed a settlement agreement under pressure to get an eviction letter has won the right to bring her pregnancy discrimination claim. The tribunal set aside the COT3 agreement on grounds of duress.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #cot3-agreement
- #duress
- #pregnancy-discrimination
- #unsubstantiated-gross-misconduct
- #homelessness
- #vulnerable-employee
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Stable Lass/Work Rider from 6 February 2019 until 15 October 2021.
- The claimant became pregnant in June 2021 and experienced morning sickness and stress.
- On 29 September 2021, there was a violent incident involving the claimant's partner T, who damaged property and was suspended.
- The respondent raised unsubstantiated allegations of gross misconduct against the claimant and restricted her access to her tied accommodation.
- The claimant signed a COT3 agreement on 15 October 2021 under pressure to obtain an eviction letter for housing.
- The tribunal found the COT3 was entered into under duress and set it aside, and that it did not settle the pregnancy discrimination claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a Stable Lass/Work Rider at age 16.
-
Pregnancy
The claimant became pregnant. She later alleged that the attitude of Eve Johnson changed towards her.
-
Incident at Stable Bungalow
The claimant's partner T kicked her door, broke a window with a golf club, and shouted. The claimant was distressed.
-
T suspended; claimant leaves shift early
T was suspended and agreed to leave. The claimant left her shift early with permission to speak to him. An altercation occurred with Sarah Scott.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
The respondent sent a letter inviting the claimant to a disciplinary hearing for alleged gross misconduct: unacceptable behaviour, walking out of work, and unauthorised time off.
-
Second disciplinary letter and offer
The respondent sent a second letter repeating the allegations and stating that the claimant's relationship with T meant her employment should end. It offered a settlement: notice pay, reference, and eviction letter.
-
Claimant accepts offer
The claimant texted acceptance of the proposal, emphasising her urgent need for an eviction letter as she was homeless.
-
COT3 agreement signed
The claimant signed a COT3 agreement after a brief phone call with an ACAS conciliator. The agreement provided £720 notice pay, a reference, and an eviction letter.
-
Early conciliation initiated
The claimant contacted ACAS to initiate early conciliation, indicating her intention to challenge the COT3.
-
Claimant rehoused
The claimant and her daughter were rehoused by South Oxfordshire District Council.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a COT3 agreement settling an employment dispute was voidable because the employee signed it under duress, and if so, whether it should be set aside to allow her claims to proceed.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the COT3 agreement was entered into under duress and set it aside. This means the claimant can now pursue her claims of unfair dismissal and pregnancy/maternity discrimination.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was 19, with learning difficulties, and had a difficult background.
- She was facing homelessness and urgently needed an eviction letter to secure housing.
- The respondent raised unsubstantiated gross misconduct allegations and restricted her accommodation access.
- The COT3 was presented as a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and the ACAS conciliator's call was brief and did not provide independent advice.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the decision only concerned jurisdiction.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you sign a settlement agreement under pressure, such as to avoid homelessness, a tribunal may set it aside for duress.
- Employers should ensure vulnerable employees have independent advice and time to consider settlement offers, especially when allegations are unsubstantiated.
- A COT3 agreement may not settle discrimination claims if the agreement does not explicitly refer to them.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the circumstances of vulnerable employees, including age, education, and personal circumstances, when assessing duress.
This case shows how a settlement agreement can be challenged when an employee is under extreme pressure. The claimant, a 19-year-old stable lass with learning difficulties, was pregnant and living in tied accommodation. After a violent incident involving her partner, the respondent raised unsubstantiated gross misconduct allegations and restricted her access to housing. Facing homelessness, she signed a COT3 agreement that provided notice pay and an eviction letter but did not explicitly settle her pregnancy discrimination claim.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have handled the situation more fairly by not raising unsubstantiated allegations and by allowing the claimant time to seek independent advice. The ACAS conciliator's brief phone call was insufficient given her vulnerability. A fair process would have addressed her accommodation needs separately from the disciplinary process.
Why this matters
The decision reinforces that settlement agreements can be set aside if signed under duress, particularly for vulnerable employees. It also clarifies that a COT3 agreement may not waive discrimination claims unless explicitly stated. This case serves as a reminder that employers must act fairly and consider the employee's circumstances when proposing settlements.
Similar cases
Pregnant chef dismissed after requesting time off for pregnancy-related illness
A chef was automatically unfairly dismissed when her employer fired her by message after she requested time off for pregnancy-related bleeding. The tribunal awarded £18,479 for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and unauthorised deductions.
Dismissed for being pregnant: employer's false redundancy reason leads to £25,000 award
A Birmingham tribunal found that ALM Electrical Solutions Ltd dismissed a pregnant employee shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy, fabricating a redundancy reason. The claimant was awarded over £25,000 for injury to feelings and losses.
Pregnant employee dismissed after raising health and safety concerns: tribunal awards £43,000
A former employee who was dismissed while pregnant after raising health and safety concerns has won her claims for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. The East London Employment Tribunal awarded her £43,153.60 in compensation.
Pregnant cleaner dismissed without risk assessment: £9,000 award
A cleaner was dismissed while pregnant, without a maternity risk assessment. The tribunal awarded £9,107.40, including £7,500 for injury to feelings.