Disabled women and reasonable adjustments at work: new ruling

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

Disabled women in the workplace take note: new ruling about reasonable adjustments at work and your rights

Obviously not just for women, but it will be of interest to many of us here. It's not clear to me if this is just England and Wales, or applicable in all of GB and NI.

https://news.sky.com/story/money-live-personal-finance-consumer-interest-rate-mortgages-savings-careers-jobs-tips-sky-news-latest-13040934

(you'll have to scroll down to find the story from 5 October 2026)

Can you sue your boss? Experts say you can

Experts say a new tribunal ruling means you can personally sue your boss at work if your request for reasonable adjustments is ignored.

A tribunal recently ruled that managers who fail to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers can be held equally liable as their employer....

The employment tribunal initially dismissed the claims against the individuals, finding that a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments could only be brought against the employer.

But this was later overturned on appeal, with the appeal tribunal arguing that while the duty to make reasonable adjustments rests with the employer, individual employees can be held personally liable for their own actions under sections 109 and 110 of the Equality Act 2010. [my bold]

Although the case does not mean the four individuals have been found to have breached the Equality Act, it means the claims against them can now proceed....

[link to tribunal ruling]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aabfc9f2f29b3888481867c/Ms_C_Merriman_v__1__1st_Staff_Ltd_and_Others__2026__EAT_128.pdf

That is good news.

This judgement is just to confirm that your manager is individually responsible and can be prosecuted for breaking the Equality Act as well as the organisation being corporately liable. We've had the right to bring a discrimination case about this for many years, this ruling doesn't give the disabled or otherwise disadvantaged employee any additional rights, it just makes sure that individual bosses are held to account for their individual actions and decisions.

One of the points made in the news article that I forgot to mention is that this will help disabled people sue if the original employer (business) has folded. Previously, that would have meant that there would be no one left to sue. Now, employees can proceed against individuals, even if the business has gone under.

Useful to know. HR may be fine, but an individual manager may still make necessary reasonable adjustments hell on earth.

Absolutely. A lot of businesses have official policies that say all the right things but leave it to individual managers' discretion to rule on specific cases without oversight to ensure that they are acting reasonably.

Oh that's interesting. I hadn't picked up on that bit.

Exactly, this judgment will be very useful in cases where the manager is obstructive in implementing reasonable adjustments.

As this is EA based, I think it will apply in Scotland but it won't cover NI. No 2010 Equality Act here.

Hmm. I'm not sure about this. It's going to involve a lot of discussion re what was actually reasonable. Still, a test case would be interesting.

Technical question for legal minds out there such as @prh47bridge @MyAmpleSheep

Who is at fault when a disabled person hasn’t got a reasonable toilet option?

I have parents who say to me they are worried about their children going to school because all the standard toilets are private from floor to ceiling. In one case the school said the designs are DfE standard and the child would have to leave the door open. Thats not realistic at secondary school or workplace.

When I have written to the DfE, they state it’s up to the individual schools to decide what designs are suitable for their pupils.

The way medical emergencies in toilets happen (more likely in certain medical conditions, some of which count as disabilities), is that people collapse without having the awareness or willingness to get help. It may be that these people are fine 99% of the time walking around but have an ambulant disability that predisposes them to collapse. If they feel nauseous etc there’s a high possibility they may end up in a toilet.

The people I have had contact me to ask for help have children with epilepsy, diabetes and allergies. Other adults have discussed heart conditions, stroke, miscarriage and endometriosis. For context 11% of cardiac arrests happen in the toilet.

The toilet example HSE use as a reasonable adjustment is a man with prostate cancer being given a bin to dispose of sanitary wear.

I know it is more than a reasonable adjustment for there to be a set of toilets with (up to) a 15cm door gap at the bottom of the door for safety. This is an option allowed by the DfE and ADT (Approved Document T for toilet designs in 2024).

However, the current design guidance for the DfE still state that the gaps are optional even within single sex environments. For ADT, it doesn’t even mention door gaps even though after discussing with HSE and BSR they are permitted in a single sex environment. The government consultation to ADT was flawed because the needs of people with a whole range of disabilities was not even noted so therefore could not be assessed. However the literature evidence for privacy was listed as a preference of transactivists. It has always been the case for decades that partition and door gaps of up to 15cm have been allowed for health and safety reasons in single sex toilet environments. It continues to be the case.

For context, just for epilepsy in schools alone, there are around 9 children who have epilepsy in an average secondary school.

All schools have a defibrillator in case people collapse but you need to know someone is in need of it.

25% of schools only have mixed sex designs (private mixed sex cubicles leading out onto shared sinks) which I am assuming they are just reallocating to single sex without changing the design - similar to the design shown. These are not a reasonable design for children with certain disabilities.

Will this focus the minds of schools or the DfE? Who is at fault when a child hasn’t got a suitable option?

What about building regulations? They should at least discuss why a completely private design is not suitable for certain disabilities in ADM (accessibility) in their separate sex toilet washrooms. I think it was assumed the design for toilet cubicles would usually have door gaps for cleaning, ventilation, supervision and prevention of misuse. These were the reasons listed in Standards at the time of the 1992 legislation.

From my disability network days I believe there is fairly solid case law around reasonable vs unreasonable adjustments, and cost plays a big factor. I don't know how that would read across to service provision like toilets though.

I don't claim a legal mind, but I find the law very interesting.

In one case the school said the designs are DfE standard and the child would have to leave the door open. Thats not realistic at secondary school or workplace.

I would start by examining the possibility of a successful suit against the school for unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability. If the school has seriously suggested that "leaving the door open" is a genuine requirement for any given pupil safely to use the toilet facilities then those facilities cannot be said to be suitable for that pupil because when used in that way they don't meet the basic requirements of privacy.

You might have to satisfy that the condition in question qualifies as a disability, although I'm sure there's a lot of precedent on what counts.

They may have another way to provide a suitable toilet facility though, without door gaps on all cubicles.

In the context of this thread are you wondering whether the head teacher is also liable?

Yes. According to the DfE the responsible body depended on how the school was set up (they gave me a list inc governors etc). This news changes that if the headteacher said no.

I thought individual employees could already be held liable? You could make them a second respondent? Employers can also be held liable for discrimination by their employees. I think its point 109 or something in the Act.
It was / is common to do this where a business might fold.
Am I missing something here?

Is this limited to disability and to employees? Can a service user make a claim against an individual manager for sex discrimination? Does the employer have to indemnify the manager and pay their legal costs? On the one hand it sounds good but on the other it does seem to open individual employees up to vexatious claims.

I don't think it's fair to describe such a claim as vexatious. The system of civil laws and tribunals is there to allow people a forum to state a claim. While it's very unpleasant being on the receiving end of a claim, especially if you think it's unfounded, it's a necessary duty of everyone to be prepared to put up with it for the sake of all of us having a judicial forum to turn to.

The way I understand it is that employers are liable for the actions of their employees. But if the employer has taken enough steps to discharge their responsibility and the employee still disciminates, the employee carries the can.

The example given in the EHRC guidance (which the EAT cited approvingly) suggests that a manager who discriminates, albeit unknowingly because they didn't attend mandatory training provided by the company, could be personally liable - the employer, having provided training in equality issues, could have done enough to escape liability.

The judgment is available here

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/ms-c-merriman-v-1-1st-staff-ltd-and-others-2026-eat-128

As far as schools go - I don’t think it would cover toilets as school buildings are not covered by the Equality Act in the same way other buildings are (unless they are let out for other purposes). Schools/education authorities have an obligation to have an accessibility strategy that says how they will improve the buildings but that does require specific adjustments to the buildings.

In Scotland if you sue for disability discrimination in schools you cannot be awarded any compensation if you win under the equality act.

I don't think it's fair to describe such a claim as vexatious.

Most claims brought before the courts, even ill advised ones, are not vexatious, but vexatious claims are definitely a possibility within the legal system. There is a well known TRA who brings vexatious claims (though the courts have not yet recognised it as such).

I don’t think it would cover toilets as school buildings are not covered by the Equality Act in the same way other buildings are

Can you substantiate this claim?

There are various schedules to EA2010 that apply to schools but is there anything that overrides 85(2)?

The responsible body of such a school must not discriminate against a pupil—
...(b)in the way it affords the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service;

I would say it lets employers off the hook.

Schedule 3 part 2 (10)

section 29, so far as relating to disability discrimination, does not require a local authority in England or Wales exercising functions under the Education Acts or an education authority exercising relevant functions to remove or alter a physical feature.

Sorry struggling to find the equivalent section for Scotland. Accessibility plans for schools in England and Wales are covered under schedule 10 and the Education (disability strategies and pupils’ educational records)(Scotland) act 2002 in Scotland

@BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp Thank you for posting about this.

I am retired HR but when working I lost count of the number of times I asked a manager who didn’t agree with reasonable adjustments - how would you justify that at an ET?

Most reasonable adjustments cost very little - less than £20, but require managers, and employees, to think creatively. I think this could be really positive for employees with disabilities.

I think you might have it backwards?

That excuses a breach of section 29, but section 29 applies only to the provision of a public service.

Education, and specifically the unlawfulness of discrimination in the provision of services by schools to pupils, is covered in section 85, which is not excused by Schedule 3.

I think the purpose of the exception you are quoting is that a school doesn't have to adapt its premises if it offers services to the public; but premises still have to suit disabled pupils.

I may have that wrong though.

Also: section 28 says that Part 3 (which includes section 29) doesn't apply ...
to discrimination, harassment or victimisation— (a)that is prohibited by Part 4 (premises), 5 (work) or 6 (education), or

And discrimination against disabled students is covered in part 6 (section 85) so that's another reason section 29 doesn't apply to schools.

You're right in general but until this ruling, lower tribunals had been routinely throwing out claims against individual employees for reasonable adjustment claims because the equality act specifically makes reasonable adjustments a duty placed on the employer.

I have been through the reasonable adjustments process several times. From personal experience, I find that the earlier and more forcefully you point out their obligations, the harder it is for employers to say no. I am quite forthright in my demands, however, and many people either do not know their rights or are unable or unwilling to assert themselves. So, I've been known to assert myself on their behalf, to get the ball rolling! 😉Thanks for doing the same!

ed. sp.