The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others has sent a clear message to employers, HR professionals and managers: liability for disability discrimination may not stop at the organisation’s door. Individuals involved in decisions relating to reasonable adjustments can face personal liability under the Equality Act 2010.
While the duty to make reasonable adjustments formally rests with the employer, the EAT has reaffirmed that organisations can only act through the people who make and implement decisions on their behalf. As a result, managers and decision-makers who play a role in rejecting, delaying or mishandling adjustment requests may find themselves named personally in Employment Tribunal proceedings.
The Facts of Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd
The claimant, Ms Merriman, worked as a tutor through an agency arrangement. After developing disabilities that affected her ability to attend tutoring sessions in person, she requested a number of workplace adjustments, including the option to deliver sessions remotely. When those adjustments were not implemented, she brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 against both the agency and several individual employees involved in the decision-making process.
At first instance, the Employment Tribunal allowed the claim against the agency to proceed but struck out the claims against the individual respondents, concluding that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was owed only by the employer.
The EAT disagreed.
Why the EAT Allowed the Appeal
The EAT held that the Tribunal had erred in law by striking out the claims against the individual respondents. Although the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer, a company can only act through its employees and agents. Where an individual’s actions contribute to a breach of that duty, personal liability may also arise under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010.
In reaching its conclusion, the EAT relied heavily on the earlier decision in Baldwin v Cleves School, which established that where the conditions for individual liability under section 110 are met, Employment Tribunals do not have a discretion to excuse the individual simply because the employer is also liable.
The EAT therefore ordered that the individual respondents be rejoined to the proceedings for further case management.
The Relationship Between Sections 109 and 110 Equality Act 2010
The decision highlights the interaction between two important provisions of the Equality Act 2010:
Section 109: Employer Liability
Section 109 makes employers vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by employees in the course of their employment.
Section 110: Individual Liability
Section 110 provides that employees and agents may themselves be liable where they carry out discriminatory acts which render the employer liable under section 109.
The significance of both Baldwin and Merriman is that Tribunals cannot simply choose not to impose liability on individuals when the statutory conditions are satisfied. If an employee’s act contributes to unlawful discrimination, personal liability may follow.
What Does This Mean for Managers?
For many managers, reasonable adjustment requests are viewed primarily as an HR issue. These cases demonstrate that such an approach can be risky.
Managers are often the individuals who:
- Receive adjustment requests.
- Assess practical options.
- Make recommendations.
- Decide whether adjustments will be implemented.
- Communicate decisions to employees.
Where those decisions result in a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the individuals involved may now face increased scrutiny and potential personal exposure in Tribunal claims.
Being named as a respondent can be stressful, time-consuming and professionally damaging, even where a claim is ultimately unsuccessful.
Practical Steps Employers Should Take
The decision serves as an important reminder that disability-related workplace issues should be handled carefully and consistently. Employers should consider:
Providing Regular Training
Managers should receive up-to-date training on disability discrimination law, including when the duty to make reasonable adjustments arises and the potential for personal liability.
Escalating Requests Promptly
Adjustment requests should be referred to HR or specialist advisers at an early stage to ensure appropriate consideration.
Keeping Clear Records
Decision-makers should document requests, consultations, alternatives considered and the reasons for any decisions taken.
Focusing on Collaboration
Reasonable adjustment requests are rarely straightforward. A collaborative dialogue with the employee can often help identify practical solutions and demonstrate that the employer has engaged meaningfully with its obligations.
Key Takeaway
The EAT’s decision in Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and Others reinforces the increasingly broad reach of personal liability under the Equality Act 2010. While the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments remains an employer obligation, managers and employees involved in relevant decisions cannot assume they are insulated from legal risk.
For employers, the message is clear: disability adjustment requests require careful handling, robust training and well-documented decision-making. For managers, the case is a timely reminder that employment law responsibilities can carry personal consequences as well as corporate ones.
CONTACT US
We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.
lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk
Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law
