Mr Olushola Akinyemi v Lancashire County Council — 2026

The tribunal upheld Mr Olushola Akinyemi’s claim of direct sex discrimination against Lancashire County Council and dismissed his claim of direct race discrimination. Mr Akinyemi, whose ethnicity was recorded as Black British (African), was an agency worker undertaking night shifts as a Waking Watch Support Worker in the council’s children’s residential services. The claims concerned his removal from Thornton Children’s Home following an incident on 4 August 2024 and his referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) the next day.

The tribunal accepted the three staff members’ contemporaneous accounts of the incident. During a restraint, the young person pushed towards agency worker Emma Smith, whose arm contacted her breast. The claimant’s hand or arm contacted the young person’s inner leg as he tried to stop her kicking him. The tribunal found that he did not grab her leg or put his hands up her shorts. The restraint was reasonable and proportionate, and none of the staff acted inappropriately. The young person made allegations against both workers and withdrew neither allegation.

Emma Smith was an appropriate comparator under section 23 of the Equality Act 2010. Both workers had made accidental contact while responding to the same difficult and changing situation. The young person’s acceptance of comfort from Emma and continued accusations against the claimant were consequences of the incident, rather than material differences in their circumstances. The tribunal found that the young person, who had experienced child sexual exploitation by males, was re-traumatised by contact with the claimant because he was male.

The tribunal found a sufficiently close causal link between the claimant’s sex and both the decision to send him home and the LADO referral. His sex materially influenced those decisions because the young person’s reaction was inseparable from his being male. The council’s reliance on safeguarding and the young person’s distress did not break that link. Although the allegation that Richard Lawler had suspended the claimant on 4 August was not made out as pleaded, sending him home amounted to direct sex discrimination. The LADO referral independently amounted to direct sex discrimination.

The council’s fact-finding report recorded no evidence of directly inappropriate touching and recommended no further action against the claimant. Nevertheless, the council referred him to LADO and the police, distinguishing his case from Emma’s by the young person’s different reactions. It prevented him from working pending investigation, while Emma continued working. His agency said it could not deploy him elsewhere and informally suspended him without pay. The tribunal identified the LADO referral as the conduct leading to that suspension and his consequential losses. The police later cleared him of wrongdoing, and the council recorded the allegation as unsubstantiated, notifying him of the outcome on 1 November 2024.