Can line managers be personally liable for failing to make reasonable adjustments?
01.10.2026
Reasonable adjustment claims are treated differently to other heads of discrimination claims and it's rare for employees to bring proceedings against individual employees.
That's because the duty is imposed on an employer under s39(5) of the Equality Act. Does that mean that individual's can't be named?
That was the issue the EAT had to decide in Merriman v 1st Staff Limited and others.
What happened?
Ms Merriman was engaged through a specialist agency to tutor a student with special educational needs at a residential school. She developed disabilities which meant it was very difficult for her to travel to teach the student in person. She asked for reasonable adjustments to allow her to teach remotely, or to provide her with alternative work where she could tutor online and have flexible hours.
One of the managers indicated that her request was unlikely to be accepted because the student would need a care worker to be with him to ensure he remained focussed. That would require additional funding.
Ms Merriman alleged that the agency and four named individuals it employed (including its managing director) had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal allowed the claim to proceed against the agency but struck out the claims against individual employees, finding that the duty to make reasonable adjustments rests on the employer rather than individual employees.
Ms Merriman appealed.
What did the EAT decide?
The EAT said that the tribunal had made a mistake and reinstated the claims against the individuals.
It noted that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on an employer or principal under s39(5) Equality Act. Despite this clear wording it said that a company does not make decisions independently and must rely on the actions of their employees or agents.
Relying on a previous EAT decision in Baldwin v Cleves it held that where a decision made by an employee causes a breach of the Equality Act, the relevant sections regarding personal liability may also be applied. Those conditions are that the individual is an employee or agent who does something in contravention of the Equality Act for which their employer or principal is held to be liable.
Whether these individuals are liable will depend on the facts, whether the adjustments requested were reasonable and identifying what each individual is alleged to have done or failed to do. That will be for the tribunal to decide.
Why is this decision important?
This decision marks an important shift in the way claimant's may choose to litigate reasonable adjustment claims - particularly if they are worried that their employer may be on the verge of insolvency (which appears to have been Ms Merriman's motivation for adding individual employees to her claim).
There are often a number of people involved in the decision making about reasonable adjustments including:
- the line manager who receives the request
- HR advising on it
- an occupational health professional who provides recommendations
- another manager who controls the budget
- individuals who decide whether a physical feature or auxiliary aid can be altered or provided; and
- a senior manager taking the final decision.
These individuals may now have to account for their actions. That said, claimants must still clearly identify what each individual is alleged to have done or failed to do. Vague or unsupported allegations against employees remain vulnerable to being struck out.
There is a limited defence for employees who reasonably rely on a statement by their employer that their actions would not breach the Equality Act. So, if a line manager relied on advice from HR, they may escape personal liability.
It's also worth noting that even if the employer can successfully argue that they've taken all reasonable steps to stop their staff from discriminating against others, and escape liability, the individual in question can still be liable.
These sorts of situations can also result in conflicts of interest between the employer and any named individual, which means that each party will need to have separate legal representation, unless they chose to represent themselves which is a daunting prospect for most people.
What can you do to protect your staff from being held liable in these circumstances?
- Train managers, HR teams and others involved in adjustment decisions on the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the potential consequences of getting those decisions wrong
- Make sure responsibility for considering adjustment requests is clearly allocated and that decision-makers understand when to ask for specialist advice, such as from HR or occupational health
- Encourage early and constructive conversations with employees about what barriers they face and what adjustments might remove them
- Consider requests on their individual merits and avoid rejecting adjustments based on assumptions or without exploring alternative solutions; and
- Keep a clear record of the information considered, the options explored and the reasons for the decision reached.
Our newsletters
We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.
Key Contacts
Related Articles
Expert CommentThe government has confirmed it's going to reform non-compete clauses.Over the last few years, governments of various colours have carried out successive consultations and policy reviews on whether non-compete clauses stifle competition, innovation and labour mobility, without ever quite pulling the trigger on reform.
Expert CommentDo short notice periods undermine the enforceability of restrictive covenants?That was one of the issues the court had to decide in a recent case.
Expert CommentEmployment Rights Act: updated timeline for schools and collegesThe Employment Rights Act 2025 ('the ERA 2025') is coming into force in stages.
