C Merriman v 1st Staff Limited & Ors

The duty to make reasonable adjustments rests on an employer or principal, but that does not categorically bar a claim against an employee. Under the Equality Act 2010, sections 109 and 110 may attribute an employee’s act to the employer and impose personal liability where the statutory conditions are met. Whether those conditions are satisfied, and what each individual did, must be determined on properly particularised allegations.

Ms C Merriman, who had been engaged through an agency as a tutor, developed disabilities and sought adjustments including online teaching. The Employment Tribunal allowed her reasonable-adjustments claim against the first respondent, a company through which her services were provided, but struck out similar claims against the second to fifth respondents, individuals working for that company. It considered that such claims could not be brought against individuals because the adjustment duty rested with the employer.

Ms Merriman appealed that ruling. The central issue was whether a reasonable-adjustments claim could in law be brought against individual employees, and whether the claims against them could proceed at this stage.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal erred in law by holding that a reasonable-adjustments claim could not be brought against individuals.
2. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on an employer or principal, but a company can act only through its employees or agents. Where an employee or agent does something which is treated under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 as done by the employer or principal, and that act amounts to a contravention, section 110 may impose personal liability if its conditions are met. An individual claim is therefore not barred simply because the adjustment duty rests with the employer. In Baldwin v Cleves School & Ors [2024] EAT 66, the EAT had explained that section 110 leaves no discretion to refuse a finding when its conditions are satisfied, regardless of whether the employer is liable or has the section 109 reasonable-steps defence. The EHRC Employment Code was not a definitive statement of law, but its example supported this interpretation.
3. The Tribunal had not separately considered the allegations against the individual respondents. Although Ms Merriman had not provided particulars in the required form, the Tribunal’s reasons did not show that it had assessed those allegations separately from the claim against the first respondent. Since that claim was allowed to proceed, there was no principled basis for striking out the claims against the individuals at that stage. Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital provided no assistance because this was a preliminary hearing and further work was needed before trial.
4. The second to fifth respondents were ordered to be rejoined to the claim insofar as it concerned reasonable adjustments. This did not determine whether any individual had committed an unlawful act. Further Tribunal hearings would be needed to clarify and particularise the allegations and prepare a proper list of issues.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: In C Merriman v 1st Staff Limited & Ors [2026] EAT 128 , the appeal was allowed and the second to fifth respondents were ordered to be rejoined to the claim insofar as it concerned reasonable adjustments.
• Employment Tribunal, Midlands East: By a decision promulgated on 8 November 2024, the Tribunal allowed the reasonable-adjustments claim against the first respondent but struck out the corresponding claims against the second to fifth respondents. The EAT reversed that strike-out.