A long-running workplace dispute inside the NHS has ended with a hefty payout after a senior professor successfully proved he was treated unfairly.
What began as internal complaints spiraled into a legal fight that exposed deep flaws in how the health service handled allegations, discipline, and concerns around race.
Who Is Professor Tanweer Ahmed?
Professor Tanweer Ahmed, a highly paid senior clinical director earning around £100,000 a year, had spent years building his career within United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust.
He joined the Trust back in 2003, holding several senior roles, including Director of Lincoln Clinical Research Facility, Director of Research Innovation, and chair of the BAME staff network.
By the time the controversy unfolded, he had 16 years of service and no history of gross misconduct.
The Allegations That Sparked It All
The trouble began in June 2018 when researcher Helen Ayre, who worked under Professor Ahmed, accused him of bullying, making inappropriate comments, and failing to follow Trust procedures.
Many of the claims were based on second-hand accounts from former staff who had left the department years earlier.
One particularly serious allegation suggested Professor Ahmed told Ms Ayre during a meeting that she was not allowed to get pregnant.
The tribunal later heard that most of these accusations were historical and relied heavily on hearsay.
A Delayed and Deeply Flawed Investigation
Despite the seriousness of the claims, a formal investigation did not begin until early 2019—almost a year later.
By then, many of the witnesses no longer worked in the department, and some had left as far back as five to ten years earlier.
When Professor Ahmed was interviewed in February 2019, he strongly denied the allegations, describing them as malicious and retaliatory.
He said he believed the complaint stemmed from performance-related tensions and raised concerns that his race played a role in how the situation was being handled.
“Playing the Race Card” and Internal Emails
Professor Ahmed, who is Muslim and of Pakistani heritage, told investigators he felt targeted because he was BAME, describing the situation as a case of “the white person being harsh.”
The investigator, Jennie Negus, dismissed this comment as inappropriate.
However, behind the scenes, internal emails painted a troubling picture.
Martin Rayson, the Trust’s Director of HR and a board member, wrote that Professor Ahmed would likely “play the race card” and dismissed his reference to staff survey data showing that 80 percent of BAME staff felt discriminated against.
These comments would later play a major role in the tribunal’s findings.
A Recommendation Ignored and a Sudden Escalation
Despite the investigation report not recommending disciplinary action, and Professor Ahmed’s line manager Dr Neil Hepburn agreeing that a development plan was the appropriate response, Mr Rayson directed that the matter move straight to a disciplinary hearing.
Crucially, the tribunal heard that Mr Rayson was never required to explain why he overruled both the investigator and the line manager.
Stress, Whistleblowing, and Dismissal
By May 2019, Professor Ahmed went off sick with stress.
He then submitted a whistleblowing complaint, alleging discrimination against himself and wider issues affecting BAME staff within the Trust.
Just a month later, Dr Hepburn concluded that Professor Ahmed had shown a pattern of bullying and inappropriate behaviour.
He was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing, even though one close colleague described the allegations as “laughable.”
The Tribunal’s Damning Verdict
The employment tribunal, held in Nottingham, found “glaring flaws” in how the Trust handled the case.
Employment Judge Victoria Butler said the disciplinary process appeared biased from the outset, suggesting the Trust had already decided which witnesses to believe.
The judge also criticised the lack of explanation for escalating the case to a disciplinary hearing and said the process was far from fair.
Importantly, the tribunal ruled that it could not rule out race as a factor in the decision-making.
Judge Butler highlighted serious concerns about the use of phrases like “playing the race card” and the failure of senior figures to justify their actions.
A Compensation Award That Kept Rising
Earlier this year, the NHS was ordered to pay Professor Ahmed more than £250,000.
That figure has now climbed to £449,548, reflecting the severity of the discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal he suffered.
What’s Next?
The case raises uncomfortable questions about how discrimination complaints are handled within the NHS, especially when senior leaders are involved.
With such a significant payout and strong criticism from the tribunal, pressure is mounting for NHS trusts to rethink how they investigate allegations, respond to whistleblowers, and address concerns raised by BAME staff.
Whether this ruling leads to meaningful internal reform—or simply becomes another costly lesson—remains to be seen.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn