Reasonable adjustments: Personal liability of individual employees

In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) ruled that a tribunal was wrong to remove reasonable adjustments claims against individual employees. Although the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments is placed on employers, the EAT emphasised that organisations can only act through the actions of their employees and agents. As a result, where an employee's conduct contributes to a breach for which the employer may be liable, that employee may also face liability under the Equality Act. The EAT therefore reinstated the claims against the individual respondents and allowed them to proceed.

Facts 

Ms Merriman worked as a tutor through 1st Staff Limited, an agency, for a student with special needs. Following the onset of disabilities that made attendance at the student's premises difficult, she sought adjustments including moving to online tuition. She brought claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. While the tribunal permitted the claim against the agency to proceed, it dismissed equivalent claims against four individual employees on the basis that the duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer alone. Ms Merriman challenged that aspect of the decision before the EAT.

The EAT

 The EAT upheld Ms Merriman’s appeal, finding that the tribunal had been wrong to dismiss the claims against the individual employees at such an early stage. Relying on an earlier EAT decision, it emphasised that although the duty to make reasonable adjustments falls on the employer, organisations act through their employees and, in some circumstances, individual employees may also be personally liable for discriminatory acts. The EAT noted that guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission supports the possibility of personal liability alongside that of the employer. As the tribunal had already concluded that the claim against the agency could proceed, there was no proper basis for preventing the claims against the individual employees from continuing. The EAT also rejected the argument that the claims should be struck out because the allegations against the individual respondents lacked sufficient detail, noting that the tribunal had not identified any meaningful distinction between the case against the agency and the case against the employees.  The EAT ordered that the individual respondents be brought back into the claim. The matter will now proceed before the employment tribunal, where further steps will be taken to ensure the allegations against each respondent are properly set out.

Comment

This decision is a reminder that claims arising from a failure to make reasonable adjustments may not be confined to the employer alone. Individuals involved in decisions about adjustments, such as managers, HR personnel or other employees, may also find themselves named as respondents where their actions are alleged to have contributed to the discrimination. In practice, this is likely to encourage claimants to pursue claims against both organisations and individuals, increasing the complexity and potential reputational impact of litigation. Employers should therefore ensure that those responsible for handling workplace adjustments receive appropriate training, understand when advice should be sought, and carefully document decision-making around adjustment requests.

If you need any assistance in relation to the issues raised in this update please do not hesitate to get in touch.