When reasonable adjustments become personal: what Merriman means for managers

Reasonable adjustments tend to be treated as something the organisation does. An employee raises a need, their manager speaks to HR, Occupational Health may become involved and, at some point, a decision is made.

But organisations do not make decisions. People do.

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment is a useful reminder of that for employers, HR teams and line managers.

In Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd & Others, 2026 EAT 128, the EAT confirmed that individual employees can potentially be held personally liable for acts that amount to their employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments. The law on adjustments has not changed. What the case brings into focus is who may have to answer when the process goes wrong.

Ms Merriman worked through an agency as a tutor for a person with special needs. She developed disabilities that made attending the premises difficult and asked for changes to how she worked, including delivering tuition online rather than face to face. She brought claims against 1st Staff Ltd and several individuals who worked for it.

The Employment Tribunal allowed the reasonable-adjustments claim against the company to continue but struck out the equivalent claims against four individuals, on the basis that the duty sits with the employer rather than its staff.

The EAT disagreed. Judge Barklem observed that “a company can only act through its agents or employees”.

Sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010 provide the legal route by which an employee or agent can potentially be liable for an act that amounts to their employer’s contravention. This can remain relevant even where the employer succeeds with the reasonable-steps defence under section 109(4).

None of this is new. The EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice already gives an example of a line manager who fails to make adjustments after an employee makes their needs known. The employer may have a defence because it has taken reasonable preventative steps, while the manager can still be liable. Merriman brings that principle back into view.

The EAT did not find that the four individuals discriminated against Ms Merriman, that the adjustment she requested was reasonable or that any manager was personally liable.

It decided a narrower procedural point: the claims against the individuals could not be struck out simply because the duty to make reasonable adjustments sits with the employer.

This is not a reason for managers to dread adjustment requests. It is a reason to give them better processes, better training and better information when those requests arrive.

Consider how a request usually plays out. Someone tells their manager that something at work is creating a barrier. They talk, an email follows, HR joins in, perhaps there is an Occupational Health referral, and eventually something is agreed, declined or only partly implemented. Everyone assumes it is dealt with.

Six months later, the picture can look quite different. What was requested, and when? Who considered it? What alternatives came up? Why was one option taken and another rejected? What was actually put in place, and did anyone check that it worked?

If the answers are spread across inboxes, meeting notes and people’s memories, there is a problem. The employee has to keep explaining their needs, and the organisation ends up with inconsistency and a thin audit trail. Merriman adds a further layer: a manager may have little evidence of what they weighed up, why they made a decision or what happened next.

That makes record keeping a good deal more than administration. It is part of fair decision making, continuity and good governance.

One of the ideas behind AXS Passport is that accessibility needs should not vanish into emails, Word documents and conversations nobody can reconstruct later. An individual can record and share their needs in a structured way, while adjustment requests move through a defined process that logs what was requested, what was considered, what was agreed or declined and what followed.

We often talk about this from the individual’s perspective: less repeated disclosure and more ownership over how someone communicates their needs. Merriman gives a second reason for the record. It protects the decision-making process itself.

An audit trail is not a legal force field. Software cannot make a poor decision lawful, and logging discrimination does not make it acceptable. What a proper system can show is that a request was received and considered, the reasoning behind the response, what was implemented and whether the adjustment was reviewed afterwards.

If a manager’s conduct comes under scrutiny, that evidence matters.

For a fuller view of the legal duty and practical process, see our reasonable adjustments guide and our guide to tracking reasonable adjustments at work.

Merriman also landed at an interesting moment. On 2 October, the Department for Work and Pensions published the final report of its independent Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity, led by Professor Amanda Kirby.

Read together, the judgment and the report point in the same direction.

One of the Panel’s central recommendations is that workplace support should be needs-led rather than diagnosis-led. The starting point is still too often “What condition do you have?”, followed by matching the answer to a stock list of adjustments.

People do not work like that. Two people with ADHD can need very different things, and the same is true for autism, dyslexia, physical impairments and long-term health conditions. The more useful question is what barrier this person is facing and what can reasonably be done about it.

The Panel also identifies the need for stronger manager and HR capability, regular review of adjustments and better communication. Its recommendations to policymakers include a two-week deadline for employers to respond to employees’ reasonable-adjustment requests.

That deadline is a recommendation, not current law. But it signals the direction of policy thinking: faster responses, clearer accountability and support designed around the person and context rather than a diagnosis alone.

Neurodiversity training has often stopped at awareness: what ADHD, autism or dyslexia are, strengths and challenges, inclusive language. That has value, but it only takes a manager so far.

The hard moment comes on a Tuesday morning when someone says that part of their job is creating a barrier and something needs to change.

Managers do not need to become employment lawyers or experts in every condition. They do need to know how to run that conversation, focus on the person’s needs rather than assumptions about a diagnosis, bring others in at the right time, consider what is reasonable, explain a decision and record it.

That is the step from awareness to competence. It is also why practical manager guidance for supporting neurodivergent employees matters as much as policy statements.

The things that make an adjustment process safer for an organisation and its managers are largely what make it better for the person asking.

• •Listen properly and understand the barrier.
• •Record the request in the person’s own terms.
• •Consider options fairly and explain the decision.
• •Implement what is agreed, with clear ownership.
• •Review whether it has worked and adapt when it has not.

It is hardly radical. Mostly, it is just good management.

Merriman does not mean every unsuccessful adjustment leaves a manager personally liable. It does challenge the comfortable idea that reasonable adjustments belong solely to HR or the corporate entity.

At almost the same moment, the DWP is arguing for needs-led support, better-equipped managers, faster responses and reviews as circumstances change. The two belong together.

Adjustments need to be needs-led, properly documented and handled by people who know what they are doing. For employers, that is good governance. For managers, it is evidence that they acted properly. For the person who needs something at work to change, it improves the odds that they only have to ask once.

• •Employment Appeal Tribunal, Merriman v 1st Staff Ltd & Others, 2026 EAT 128
• •Equality Act 2010, sections 109 and 110
• •Equality and Human Rights Commission, Employment: Statutory Code of Practice
• •Department for Work and Pensions, Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity: Final Report and Recommendations
• •ACAS guidance on reasonable adjustments at work