An EAT decision has confirmed that individual managers can face claims over failures to make reasonable adjustments. We examine the ruling, the potential personal consequences and the importance of training, HR support and clear decision-making records.
27 October 2026
Case Study
An important judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments can be brought against an individual employee as well as the employer. This is a high-stakes decision for those with management responsibility and highlights the importance of effective training and awareness among anyone responsible for managing staff.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010. It requires employers to remove or reduce substantial disadvantages experienced by disabled people in the workplace compared with non-disabled people. Although claims involving this duty are often brought against the employer, this case considered whether the individual employee responsible for making the relevant decisions could also be personally liable.
In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others, the Claimant, Ms Merriman, was a tutor engaged through an agency. Due to her disability, she requested that her tutoring sessions be delivered online rather than in person. The request was not accommodated, and she pursued claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments against both the agency, 1st Staff Ltd, and individual employees who worked there.
At first instance, the Employment Tribunal only allowed the claim to proceed against the agency as the employer. It did not allow the claim against the other members of staff in their capacity as individual employees. However, the EAT overturned that decision on appeal.
The EAT held that the duty does not rest on the employer alone. An organisation can act through employees who are acting in the course of their employment, meaning that managers involved in decisions about reasonable adjustments can themselves be personally liable.
Case Study
The judgment is significant because decisions concerning reasonable adjustments frequently come under scrutiny, particularly where an employee believes that their employer has failed to meet its obligations. This may arise, for example, where an employee requests flexible working or asks to work from home because of a health condition.
What may not have been anticipated before this EAT ruling is that the manager handling the request or making the decision could be personally liable for any failure. A manager can be named individually as a Respondent and, where a claim succeeds, may be ordered to pay compensation to the employee personally.
The ruling brings the responsibilities of individual managers into sharper focus. A request for reasonable adjustments should not be regarded solely as a matter of organisational responsibility because the conduct and decisions of the manager dealing with that request may also be examined.
It is therefore imperative that managers understand their responsibilities in relation to disability discrimination and the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Organisations should also consider wider equality, diversity and inclusion training for those with decision-making responsibilities.
The case also provides an opportunity for employers to examine how absence, health conditions and adjustment requests are handled in practice. In particular, organisations should consider:
Where an adjustment is requested, managers should keep all options open and consider any available alternatives. Employers should not encourage an ethos in which saying no is the default response.
This does not mean that every requested adjustment must necessarily be made. The size and resources available may be relevant, while in some circumstances the requested adjustment may not remove the disadvantage experienced by the employee. Funding was also relevant in this particular case.
Where an adjustment is not made, the organisation’s records must explain why. Those records should provide clear evidence of:
Ultimately, the judgment means that responsibility for reasonable adjustments should not be viewed as resting solely with the employing organisation. Managers involved in handling requests and making decisions may now face personal liability where the duty is not met. Good training, appropriate HR support, proper consideration of the available options and clear records of the decision-making process are therefore important for the organisation and the individual managers involved.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More