Can managers be personally liable for failing to make reasonable adjustments?

Many employers assume that a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim can only be brought against the organisation itself. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision suggests that approach may be too simplistic.

In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others, the EAT confirmed that individual employees may also face personal liability where they are involved in decisions that lead to an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.

What happened?

The claimant worked as a tutor through an agency. After developing disabilities, she requested a number of adjustments, including moving from face-to-face teaching to online delivery.

When those adjustments were not implemented, she brought Employment Tribunal (ET) claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

The claim was brought not only against the agency but also against several individual employees who had been involved in the decision-making process.

The ET allowed the claim to proceed against the agency but struck out the claims against the individual employees. Its reasoning was straightforward: the duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer, not individual employees.

The claimant appealed.

What did the EAT decide?

The EAT disagreed with the ET and reinstated the claims against the individual respondents.

While the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer, the EAT highlighted a practical reality: companies can only act through the people who work for them.

If an individual's actions contribute to a breach of the employer's duty, that individual may be personally liable under section 110 of the Equality Act 2010.

In other words, employers are not the only parties who may find themselves defending a reasonable adjustments claim.

Why is this significant?

This decision reinforces a growing line of authority that individual managers, HR personnel and other decision-makers are not automatically protected simply because the legal duty sits with the employer.

For claimants, the judgment may encourage the naming of individual respondents where specific managers are alleged to have refused, delayed or obstructed reasonable adjustments.

For employers, it serves as a reminder that decisions about workplace adjustments are not simply organisational risks. They can create personal exposure for those involved in the process.

What does this mean for managers?

Managers are often the first people to receive requests for workplace adjustments. The judgment underlines the importance of handling those requests carefully and consistently.

Managers should:

• Take all adjustment requests seriously.
• Engage with employees to understand what support may be needed.
• Seek HR or occupational health advice where appropriate.
• Keep clear records of discussions and decisions.
• Avoid dismissing requests without proper consideration.

An unsupported or poorly documented refusal may not only increase risks for the employer but could also expose the decision-maker to personal liability.

Can claims against individuals be struck out early?

The EAT's answer appears to be "not easily".

The ET had attempted to remove the individual respondents from the proceedings at an early stage. The EAT held that it was not enough simply to say that the reasonable adjustments duty belongs to the employer.

Instead, tribunals must examine the factual allegations against each individual. If there is a realistic argument that an employee's actions contributed to the alleged breach, the claim may be allowed to proceed.

That does not mean every manager named in a claim will ultimately be found liable. However, it does mean that employers should expect tribunals to scrutinise the role played by individual decision-makers rather than dismiss claims against them automatically.

Key lessons for employers

The case contains several practical reminders:

1. Reasonable adjustment requests should be treated as a shared responsibility between managers, HR and the business.
2. Decision-making should be documented carefully, including the reasons why particular adjustments were accepted or rejected.
3. Training managers on disability discrimination remains essential.
4. Where litigation arises, employers should consider the potential exposure of individual respondents as well as the organisation itself.

The bottom line

The duty to make reasonable adjustments remains an employer obligation. However, Merriman confirms that individual employees involved in adjustment decisions may also find themselves personally named in ET proceedings.

For employers, the message is clear: getting reasonable adjustments right is not just about organisational compliance. It also means ensuring that managers and decision-makers understand their responsibilities and approach requests thoughtfully, consistently and with appropriate support.

As disability discrimination claims continue to rise, employers would be well advised to review their reasonable adjustments processes and ensure that managers are equipped to deal with requests confidently and lawfully.