A £100,000-a-year Asian professor has won a racism case against an NHS trust after a colleague complained he was 'playing the race card'. Professor Tanweer Ahmed successfully sued the health service after he was sacked over 'laughable' bullying allegations.
The senior clinical director had tried to fight off the historical accusations, which he branded 'malicious' and a tribunal found were based 'heavily on hearsay'. But, Prof Ahmed - who is Muslim and of a Pakistani background - was dragged through a disciplinary investigation and sacked after the trust's HR boss Martin Rayson moaned he was 'playing the race card'.
Now, the 55 year old is in line to receive compensation after suing United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust for race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal. There were 'so many flaws' in the way the NHS Trust investigated and sacked Prof Ahmed, Employment Judge Victoria Butler ruled.
Prof Ahmed joined the Trust in 2003 as its Director of Lincoln Clinical Research Facility, Director of Research Innovation, and was also the chair of the BAME staff network. The tribunal heard that in June 2018, researcher Helen Ayre, who worked under Prof Ahmed, made allegations claiming he bullied her and others, made inappropriate comments, and didn't follow the Trust procedures.
Ms Ayre's allegations 'relied heavily on hearsay' from other colleagues who no longer worked at the Trust and her allegations dated back years, it was heard. In one instance, Ms Ayre claimed Prof Ahmed had said during a meeting that she was not allowed to get pregnant.
The tribunal, held in Nottingham, was told an investigation by Jennie Negus only began in early 2019, nearly a year later. The panel heard: "Most of the allegations were historical, none of the management witnesses remained in [Prof Ahmed's] department and some of the witnesses interviewed as part of the investigation had left [his] department five to ten years before the complaint was made."
When he was interviewed in February 2019 Prof Ahmed claimed Ms Ayre's complaint was retaliatory because of performance issues and said he felt they were being pursued because of his race. A tribunal report said: "He also said that he did not understand why he was being investigated and suggested it was because he was BAME and 'the white person being harsh'. Ms Negus responded by saying that she thought it was an inappropriate comment for him to make."
In her investigation report, Ms Negus did not recommend disciplinary action and Prof Ahmed's line manager Dr Neil Hepburn agreed that a development plan was an appropriate response. However, Mr Rayson, who was Director of HR and Organisational Development and Board member within the trust, directed that the matter proceed to a disciplinary hearing and the tribunal heard he was not asked to explain his decision.
Prof Ahmed had pointed out a survey carried out at the hospital which found 80% of BAME staff felt discriminated against. In an email to Dr Hepburn, Mr Rayson said: "Tanweer will play the race card I suspect. His reference to the staff survey results... are irrelevant in this case.
"It is a matter of concern but has no bearing on this investigation into complaints about the way a manager has dealt with his staff. We should point him in the direction of the broader staff survey results which (unfortunately) show that the perception of bullying and harassment extends beyond the [BAME] group."
In May 2019 Prof Ahmed went off sick with stress and then raised a whistleblowing complaint alleging discrimination and BAME staff more generally. The following month, Dr Hepburn ruled Prof Ahmed had displayed a pattern of bullying, victimisation and inappropriate behaviour.
He was sacked during a disciplinary hearing - despite one witness who worked closely with him describing the allegations as 'laughable'. Prof Ahmed had 16 years service and an unblemished record for gross misconduct. The employment tribunal ruled there were 'glaring flaws' in the Trust reaching the conclusion to fire him and found it had failed to adequately explain how it reached this decision.
Employment Judge Butler concluded: "The format of the disciplinary hearing was set up in such a way that indicates [the Trust] had already formed the view that the management witnesses were telling the truth... The playing field was far from even and we draw an adverse inference from this...
"We would have expected Mr Rayson to explain why the decision to direct a disciplinary hearing was not related to race. However, there is no explanation for the leap between the findings of the investigation report to the calling of a disciplinary hearing.
"Given this, we cannot conclude that race was not a factor in the decision to call [Prof Ahmed] to a disciplinary hearing in the first place. Furthermore, we would have expected Mr Rayson to explain why [Prof Ahmed's] accusation of racism escalated into a row and why he used the phrase ‘play the race card’."
A remedy hearing to determine compensation will be held in due course.
