And speaking of dissent at work brings me to the case of Ahmed v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others, and a staggering example of bias in the disciplinary procedure.

Professor Ahmed had worked for the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust for 16 years, holding senior roles including Director of Clinical Research and Director of Research and Innovation. He was also chair of the Trust’s BAME staff network, being of Asian and Pakistani background.

In 2018, a former team member, who had recently resigned, raised allegations of bullying and harassment against him, citing incidents dating back to 2014. While Professor Ahmed was informed that complaints had been made, he was not initially provided with any specifics. Professor Ahmed believed the allegations were retaliatory in nature, stemming from performance-related issues he had previously addressed with the complainant.

An internal investigation began in 2019 where Professor Ahmed maintained the accusations were unfounded and possibly motivated by bias. When he suggested that his ethnicity might be a factor, the investigator dismissed the comment as inappropriate and claimed to feel intimidated.

The investigation process proved heavily one-sided. The investigator only interviewed witnesses who supported the allegations and some of whom had left the Trust years earlier while those who had worked closely with Professor Ahmed, including his PA and other direct reports, were excluded throughout the process.

By April 2019, the investigator’s report concluded there was some evidence of inappropriate behaviour and recommended a developmental plan as an outcome. Nonetheless, the HR Director, against whom Professor Ahmed had previously raised concerns of racism and bullying, disregarded the recommendation and escalated the matter to a disciplinary hearing and made a remark in internal correspondence speculating that Professor Ahmed would “play the race card”.

Professor Ahmed was signed off with stress in May 2019 and subsequently filed a whistleblowing complaint citing systemic discrimination. Despite his efforts to present evidence and call supportive witnesses during the disciplinary process, most were disregarded or denied. The disciplinary hearing dismissed much of his evidence and ultimately found him guilty of gross misconduct. He was summarily dismissed in December 2019. Professor Ahmed appealed the decision internally, but the dismissal was upheld.

Professor Ahmed subsequently brought claims to the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.

The Tribunal upheld all of Professor Ahmed’s claims, finding that the Trust had failed to carry out a fair and unbiased process. The Employment Tribunal found that the investigation was significantly delayed and lacked the necessary transparency, with full details of the allegations only disclosed to him nearly a year after they were first raised. The process was clearly biased, with the investigator selectively gathering evidence that supported the complaints while disregarding other evidence or alternative witness accounts. This approach, in the Tribunal’s view, breached both the Trust’s own procedures and the ACAS Code of Practice.

The internal hearing itself further demonstrated procedural unfairness, particularly that key witnesses for Professor Ahmed were excluded, and was conducted in a way that suggested the outcome had been predetermined. The Tribunal found that the disciplinary panel focused heavily on Professor Ahmed’s perceived lack of remorse, failing to fairly consider his denial of the allegations or his expressed willingness to learn and improve. It also overlooked important contextual factors such as his previously unblemished 16-year record and the investigator’s original developmental recommendations. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary process had been fundamentally flawed throughout and that it could not discount the possibility that racial bias played a role in his dismissal.

Professor Ahmed was subsequently awarded £256,032 in compensation and the Trust issued a formal apology for its procedural failings.

This case highlights the importance of conducting fair, timely and impartial investigations. Employers must ensure that disciplinary processes consider all relevant evidence and avoid any perception of bias or pre-determined decisions. Employees must be clearly informed of the allegations against them, given a full opportunity to respond and allowed to present relevant witnesses. The Tribunal’s decision serves as a reminder that dismissal should not be the default outcome and alternatives to dismissal should always be explored.