In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd and others [2026] EAT 128, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in a judgment handed down by His Honour Judge Barklem on 4 August 2026, held that a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments can be brought against individual employees as well as the employer, and reversed an employment tribunal (ET) decision striking out such claims against four people who worked for a staffing agency.
The claimant provided tuition through 1st Staff Ltd to a pupil with special needs at his place of residence. When her disabilities affected her ability to attend in person, she requested that lessons take place remotely. The proposed change required consideration of how the pupil could be supported during online teaching, including whether a carer would need to be present. The EAT noted that the final decision would have rested with the body funding the tuition, which was not a party to the proceedings.
In a decision promulgated on 8 November 2024 following a preliminary hearing, the ET allowed her claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 to proceed against the agency, but struck out the same claim against four of its staff as having no reasonable prospect of success. In the ET’s view, individuals owe no duty to make adjustments, so no such claim lies against them.
The EAT disagreed. HHJ Barklem accepted that the statutory duty falls on the employer and can also apply to the principal in an agency arrangement, but pointed out that “a company can only act through its agents or employees”. Where an employee does something in the course of their employment that puts the employer in breach, section 109 of the Act attributes that act to the employer, and section 110 can then fix the employee with personal liability for it. Following Baldwin v Cleves School [2024] EAT 66, the judge confirmed that a tribunal has no choice in the matter once the conditions of section 110 are satisfied, and that the outcome of the employer’s own “all reasonable steps” defence is irrelevant to the employee’s position (section 110(2)). He drew further support from paragraph 10.55 of the EHRC Employment Code, which uses a line manager’s failure to make adjustments as its illustration of personal liability.
The respondents also argued that nothing specific had been pleaded against the four individuals. The EAT accepted that the claimant had not complied with an earlier order to particularise her case, but the ET had assessed the pleading only against the agency and had never asked whether the individuals’ position was any different. If the claim could go forward against the agency on the existing pleading, the EAT could see no reason why it should not, for now, go forward against the individuals too.
The four individuals were rejoined to the reasonable adjustments claim. Further ET proceedings will be needed to clarify the allegations against each. The EAT observed that, once those allegations were particularised, the individuals would need witness statements about their involvement whether or not they were respondents. The EAT did not decide liability. Although the claimant neither attended nor was represented at the appeal hearing, she had submitted a skeleton argument and hearing bundle.
For employers, the decision means that handling an adjustment request is not a risk-free administrative task. A manager or HR adviser whose own decision amounts to the employer’s failure can be named as a respondent and held personally liable, and the employer’s statutory defence will not help them. Where the conditions for personal liability are otherwise satisfied, section 110(3) provides a defence if the employee reasonably relied on the employer’s statement that the conduct would not breach the Equality Act. Employers should ensure that anyone dealing with adjustment requests understands the duty, and should keep a clear record of who decided what and why.
