And speaking of coping mechanisms brings me to the costly case of Ahmed v United Lincolnshåire Hospitals NHS Trust, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether the employee had been subjected to direct race discrimination and whether their dismissal was unfair.

Professor Ahmed was employed by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust as Director of the Lincoln Clinical Research Facility and Director of Research Innovation from 1 October 2003 until his summary dismissal on 6 December 2019.

In 2018, a colleague made allegations of bullying and harassment against Professor Ahmed, prompting a disciplinary investigation. At the outset, he was reportedly not provided with full details of the complaint and continued working without knowing the specifics of the allegations.

In February 2019, Professor Ahmed expressed in an email that the allegations were likely ‘revenge’ linked to his management of the complainant’s poor performance and behaviour.

During an investigation, Professor Ahmed said he did not understand the basis of the investigation and suggested it may be due to his ethnicity; the investigator, Ms Negus, replied that this ‘was an inappropriate comment’. Ms Negus interviewed several current and former staff, some of whom had left the Trust up to ten years earlier. The Employment Tribunal found that she limited her enquiries to witnesses who supported the allegations and failed to interview any witnesses recommended by Professor Ahmed, who, in his view, ‘would disprove the allegations against him – including two named by the complainant’. She also did not seek documentary evidence to corroborate witness statements, nor request precise dates of the matters complained of to allow further investigation.

In April 2019, the investigation report found evidence of bullying and harassment, but concluded the matter was a developmental issue rather than one warranting disciplinary action. The report also noted that Professor Ahmed held an ‘incredibly strong belief […] that these allegations are racist in nature’ and added: ‘There is a real likelihood that any sanctions or actions taken will potentially be seen to be discriminatory.’ Upon reviewing the report, the Trust’s HR Director recommended that the matter be escalated to a disciplinary hearing and commented in an email that Professor Ahmed ‘will play the race card, I suspect’.

In May 2019, Professor Ahmed submitted a medical certificate confirming his absence from work due to stress. During this time, he also contacted NHS England to raise a whistleblowing complaint, alleging discrimination against him and BAME staff.

Ahead of the hearing, Professor Ahmed prepared a detailed response denying the allegations. The hearing, delayed due to ill health, took place in November 2019. Of 33 proposed witnesses, he was permitted to call 12. The Employment Tribunal later found the hearing was biased in favour of the Trust’s witnesses; notably, Ms Negus was observed assisting the complainant during questioning. In closing submissions, Ms Negus criticised Professor Ahmed’s lack of empathy or remorse.

Following further deliberations in early December 2019, the panel gave little weight to Professor Ahmed’s evidence or submissions and failed to consider his long, unblemished service. It concluded his conduct amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed him, citing concern over his lack of empathy and insight. His appeal was unsuccessful, and the dismissal was upheld.

Ultimately, Professor Ahmed brought claims against the Trust in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, and harassment.

The claims for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and victimisation were upheld. The ET found the dismissal unfair and constituting direct race discrimination. It noted that the investigation was ‘biased’ and that ‘the format of the disciplinary hearing was set up in such a way as to indicate that the [Trust] had already formed the view that the management witnesses were telling the truth’. The ET further highlighted that the Trust had relied ‘on the fact of its belief that [the professor] was guilty of gross misconduct and that such belief was reasonable, without acknowledging the glaring flaws in arriving at that conclusion’.

Professor Ahmed was awarded £449,548. The award included compensation for loss of earnings (pension and salary) as well as a substantial sum for injury to feelings arising from discrimination and victimisation.

This case is significant as it shows how fundamentally flawed disciplinary processes can lead not only to unfair dismissal but also findings of direct race discrimination and victimisation. A key turning point for the ET was the clear evidence of bias, particularly the one-sided investigation, failure to consider the employee’s evidence, and indications that the outcome had been predetermined.

For organisations, the key takeaway is the need to ensure investigations are genuinely impartial, evidence is fairly assessed on both sides, and decision-makers avoid any conduct or communications that could suggest bias or pre-judgment.