The Employment Tribunal case of Gray Lappin v Royal Academy of Dance (ET, February 2026) highlights the difficult intersection between safeguarding duties and discrimination protections in the workplace. The case demonstrates how employers can lawfully act on safeguarding concerns without breaching the Equality Act 2010.
Factual background
Mr Lappin, a gay man, was employed by the Royal Academy of Dance as an Information and Class Assistant from April 2022. He was aware of the school’s Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy and safeguarding procedures.
Concerns were raised in October 2023 regarding Mr Lappin’s interactions with a child, prompting the school to initiate safeguarding procedures.
The parents had reported:
- When collecting their child from dance class, he told them that Mr Lappin had been a storm trooper in Star Wars. The child then asked if he could tell his parents a secret and turned towards Mr Lappin, who replied “Oh he’s bursting to tell you!”. The child asked Mr Lappin if he could tell the secret, and he replied “maybe wait till you get home”. After Mr Lappin had walked away, the child told his parents “Did you know that James Bond was in Star Wars?”.
- The parents reported that the child had treated this information as a secret. They made a point within their home of not having secrets and were concerned about how this ‘secret’ was presented to their child, worrying it could be a way of seeing how the child would react when told a secret and whether he would tell his parents.
The parents’ report included other incidents, which were not reported at the time:
- Mr Lappin had seen the child looking at him eating a sweet and asked the parents if he could give him one. The parents consented and Mr Lappin passed a sweet to the child.
- The child referred to Mr Lappin as his ‘friend’ on multiple occasions.
- The child reported facts to his parents, such as the selling price of flats above the dance floor, which Mr Lappin had told him.
- Mr Lappin had encouraged the child to make up his own ‘fictitious elaborations’ about events in his week. Mr Lappin informed the parents (with reference to the child in question), that “He does love making up stories”.
The parents described an uncomfortable level of “engagement and relationship building” and were “highly uncomfortable” with Mr Lappin being around the child.
In response, the school suspended him in October 2023, reported the matter to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and carried out an investigation.
During the investigation, further allegations were revealed by the other assistant at the dance school that she had witnessed Mr Lappin:
- Gift a dance magazine to a child in the presence of the child’s mother; and
- When working with Mr Lappin who was showing her how to fold clothing left in lost property, he stated “you fold a hoodie like a foreskin”.
During the events in question, Mr Lappin was the only male external assistant at the school. The school held an investigation meeting with Mr Lappin, and ultimately dismissed him in November 2023. He alleged that he had been unfairly treated and perceived as predatory, bringing claims for direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of sex and sexual orientation. The school denied all claims.ms.
Tribunal decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that there was no less favourable treatment because of sex or sexual orientation and that the school’s actions were driven by safeguarding concerns rather than discriminatory bias. The conduct did not amount to harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
Key legal issues
1. Reason for treatment
The central issue was whether the treatment was because of a protected characteristic. The tribunal concluded that the actions taken were due to safeguarding concerns, not the claimant’s sex or sexual orientation.
2. Safeguarding obligations
The school operated within a framework of safeguarding policies and statutory guidance. Employers working with children are required to take concerns seriously and act quickly, even where allegations are not proven.
3. Suspension
Suspension was treated as a precautionary measure pending investigation and was consistent with safeguarding obligations, rather than a disciplinary sanction.
4. Harassment threshold
The tribunal found that the school’s conduct was not related to a protected characteristic and did not create an offensive or degrading environment within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Practical lessons for employers
- Clearly document the safeguarding rationale for decisions.
- Follow internal policies and procedures.
- Act promptly while ensuring fairness when concerns arise.
- Avoid stereotyping and ensure objective decision-making.
- Retain supporting evidence.
Conclusion
This case illustrates the significant weight tribunals are prepared to place on safeguarding obligations. It shows that, where properly managed, safeguarding concerns can justify firm and decisive employer action. Employers who follow a fair process and clearly document the rationale behind their decisions will generally be in a strong position to defend discrimination claims.
