In a significant development for employers, HR professionals and line managers, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that individual employees may be personally liable for disability discrimination arising from a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others [2026] EAT 128, the EAT overturned a tribunal decision which had struck out reasonable adjustment claims against individual respondents. The Employment Tribunal had concluded that only the employer could be liable because the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 rests solely with the employer. The EAT disagreed.
What happened?
The Claimant brought claims against both their employer and individual employees involved in the decisions concerning workplace adjustments. At first instance, the Tribunal struck out the claims against the individual respondents, finding that the duty under section 20 and section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 applied only to employers.
However, the EAT held that this approach was too narrow, holding that while the legal duty is imposed on the employer, employers can only act through their employees and agents. It held that where an employee’s actions contribute to a failure to comply with that duty, both the employer and the individual employee may be liable.
The EAT relied on the earlier decision in Baldwin v Cleves School and others [2024] EAT 66, which confirmed that where the requirements of section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 are met, tribunals have no discretion to decline to find an individual employee personally liable.
As a result, the strike-out was reversed and the individual respondents were re-joined to the proceedings.
Why does this matter?
Historically, reasonable adjustment claims have largely been viewed as claims against employers. This judgment makes clear that managers, HR professionals and others involved in disability-related decision-making may also find themselves personally named in proceedings.
The practical impact should not be underestimated. Being named as a respondent can involve:
- Personal involvement in litigation.
- Preparing witness evidence and attending hearings.
- Reputational concerns.
- Potential financial liability in some circumstances.
The decision also creates a potential conflict between employers and individual respondents. An employer may seek to rely on the Equality Act’s “all reasonable steps” defence, arguing that it took appropriate measures to prevent discriminatory acts. If successful, this could reduce or eliminate the employer’s liability while leaving individual employees exposed.
Key takeaways for HR
- Strengthen reasonable adjustment processes
Employers should ensure there are clear procedures for considering, approving and reviewing potential adjustment and related requests. Decisions should be evidence-based, well documented and implemented promptly. - Train managers and HR teams
Line managers are often the first point of contact for adjustment requests. Training should cover the duty to make reasonable adjustments, how to recognise potential disability issues, and the risks of failing to act appropriately. - Record decision-making carefully
Tribunals will scrutinise the steps taken, the information available at the time and the reasons for decisions. Accurate and contemporaneous records can be crucial evidence in defending claims. - Escalate complex cases
Managers should not be left to make difficult disability-related decisions in isolation. HR and occupational health input should be sought where appropriate.
Looking ahead
This decision reinforces the importance of treating reasonable adjustment requests as a shared organisational responsibility rather than solely an employer obligation. HR professionals and managers should assume that their actions, decisions and delays may be scrutinised individually in tribunal proceedings. Robust processes, training and documentation will therefore be more important than ever in managing disability-related issues and reducing legal risk.