Failure to make Reasonable Adjustments – individual employees may face personal liability

The case of Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others [2026] EAT 128 has confirmed that individual employees, as well as employers, can potentially be personally liable if there is a failure to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled employee.

Facts of the case:

The Claimant, Ms Merriman, was a tutor for a pupil with special needs and was engaged through an agency – 1st Staff Ltd (“the Respondent”).

The Claimant developed disabilities and made a reasonable adjustments request, which included that she be permitted to provide her tutor sessions online rather than in person. However, due to the pupil’s particular needs this raised practical difficulties and the reasonable adjustment request was not accommodated.

The Claimant sought to bring a claim against the Respondent and a number of individual employees in the Employment Tribunal under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”) for failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The Judgments:

The Employment Tribunal permitted Ms Merriman to bring a claim against the Respondent but struck out her claims against the named individual employees as it considered the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, finding that “the claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments is not a claim which can be brought against individuals, the obligation to make adjustments rests with the employer”.

The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) and His Honour Judge Barklem allowed the appeal on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had made an error of law.

The EAT ordered that four individual named employees be rejoined to the reasonable adjustments claim and remitted the case to the Tribunal for further case management.

The EAT noted that although the duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on an employer or principal, it can only act through its employees or agents. This means that when an employee is held to have committed an act of discrimination for which an employer is vicariously liable, the employee is equally liable.

Impact:

The case has not yet been finally determined: the EAT remitted to the Employment Tribunal the questions of whether the adjustment was reasonable and whether any respondent was liable. Nevertheless, the decision could have significant implications for managers and HR advisers who make workplace adjustment decisions. Such decisions have traditionally been treated as employer-level responsibilities, covering expenditure on modifications, changes to working practices and organisation-wide policies. This case, however, makes clear that individuals involved in those decisions may be joined as respondents to tribunal claims.

There is, however, a potential defence for individuals under Section 110(3) of the EqA 2010 if they can demonstrate that they acted in reasonable reliance on a statement by their employer that their actions would not contravene the EqA 2010. Nevertheless, this may be of limited assistance to HR advisers since the employer will often act on their advice.

Claimants who name individual respondents in reasonable adjustment claims must still ensure that the allegations against each individual are properly particularised as failure to identify the specific acts or omissions attributed to each named respondent could lead to strike-out.

Practical steps:

In light of this case, employers should:

• Carefully consider who has authority to make decisions relating to reasonable adjustments within the business;
• Provide guidance and training for any employees who have authority to determine adjustment requests; and
• Amend and update policies and procedures to reflect the above.

Should you require any assistance on reasonable adjustments, disability discrimination, or updating your policies and training, please contact the Geldards’ Employment Law team.