Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd & Ors [2026] EAT 128
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has delivered an important clarification on the scope of personal liability under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”).
In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd & Ors [2026] EAT 128, the EAT confirmed that claims arising from a failure to make reasonable adjustments are not necessarily confined to the employer. Individual employees may also be personally liable under the Equality Act 2010 where their acts or omissions contribute to a breach of the employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Facts
The Claimant, an agency tutor working with a young person with special educational needs, developed disabilities that made it difficult for her to attend sessions in person. She requested reasonable adjustments, including a move from face-to-face to online teaching. When those adjustments were not implemented, she brought claims for a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the EqA. The Claim was made against the agency employer and a number of individual employees / decision makers.
At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal allowed the reasonable adjustments claim to proceed against the agency employer but struck out the same claims against four individual employees. The Tribunal concluded that, because the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer, such claims could not be brought against individual respondents.
The Claimant appealed.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law by holding that a claim could not be brought against individuals rather than an employer.
While acknowledging the duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on an employer or principal, the EAT emphasised that a company can only act through its employees and agents. Where an employee carries out acts or deliberate failures to act (omission) that amount to a breach of the employer’s EqA obligations, the statutory framework governing vicarious and personal liability may be engaged.
Relying heavily on the earlier EAT decision in Baldwin v Cleves School and ors [2024] EAT 66, the EAT highlighted the interaction between:
- s.109 EqA, which makes employers vicariously liable for discriminatory acts (or omissions) committed by a person in the course of employment, or by an agent of the employer; and
- s.110 EqA, which provides for personal liability on the part of employees or agents who commit those discriminatory acts (or omissions).
The EAT reiterated the principle established in Baldwin that where an employee commits an act of discrimination for which the employer is liable under s.109 EqA, the employee may also be liable under s.110 EqA. An employment tribunal has no general discretion to decline to make such a finding where the statutory conditions are met.
The EAT noted this interpretation is also supported by paragraph 10.55 of the EHRC’s Employment Statutory Code of Practice (“the EHRC Code”), which explains that employees and agents may be personally liable for breaches of the EqA where their employer is also liable, and even potentially where the employer relies on the “reasonable steps” defence, being where the employer successfully argues it took all reasonable steps to prevent the actions of the employee or agent. Although the EHRC Code is not a definitive statement of the law, the EAT considered it consistent with the principle that, while the duty to make reasonable adjustments rests on the employer, individual employees and managers whose acts or omissions amount to a breach may also face personal liability under s.110 EqA.
Key Takeaways for Schools and MATs
Although the decision in this case arose in the context of agency working, the decision has potentially significant implications for wider employment and agency working in Schools and Multi Academy Trusts (“MATs”). Requests for reasonable adjustments are commonplace in the education sector. Decisions about those adjustments are often made by headteachers, senior leaders, HR professionals and line managers rather than governing bodies or trusts directly.
The EAT’s judgment highlights that individuals involved in the decision-making process may not be insulated from liability simply because the statutory duty is expressed as applying to the employer. Where a manager or other employee plays a material role in refusing, delaying or inadequately implementing reasonable adjustments, they may potentially be joined as an individual respondent alongside the School or MAT.
The decision in this case may therefore encourage claimants to name individual managers in disability discrimination claims, particularly where there is a dispute about who was responsible for the relevant decisions not to implement reasonable adjustments. This will likely be especially relevant in complex cases involving prolonged discussions regarding alternative working arrangements, phased returns to work, adjustments to duties, redeployment opportunities or workplace support measures. It is not uncommon for claimants to tactically name individual employees as respondents to a claim, in addition to the employing school or MAT. This is usually done to exert additional pressure on the employer to resolve the matter so as to safeguard the wellbeing and interests of those named individual who remain employed by them, and to put the employer off from defending the case to trial because of the associated costs.
While this case was decided at a preliminary EAT stage and further judicial consideration may follow, it provides a clear warning that personal liability under ss.109 and 110 EqA should not be overlooked in reasonable adjustments cases, or indeed any claim brought under the EqA.
For school leaders, HR practitioners and trustees, the safest approach remains to ensure that adjustment requests are considered carefully, documented thoroughly and progressed without unnecessary delay. Any decisions taken should be internally scrutinised, there should be a mechanism for further escalation/review if the employee remains dissatisfied and where possible decisions should be made by more than one person.
For Schools and MATs more generally, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of:
- ensuring managers understand their obligations under the EqA;
- providing appropriate training on disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments;
- maintaining clear records of requests, consultations, medical evidence and decision-making;
- documenting the rationale for accepting, rejecting or modifying proposed adjustments;
- ensuring that you have adequate insurance / Risk Protection Arrangement in place covering both the organisation and any individual decision maker;
and
- keeping adjustment arrangements under regular review as an employee’s circumstances evolve.
This briefing is not intended to be a definitive statement of the law and is correct at the time of publication. It should not be taken as a substitute for professional legal advice. It does not represent the views of Winckworth Sherwood or any of the authors.
If your school or MAT require advice and assistance in relation to your obligations under the Equality Act 2010 or any other school HR or employment law related matter, please contact Winckworth Sherwood’s dedicated Schools HR helpdesk on schoolshr@wslaw.co.uk or 0345 026 8690.