MAN SUES IBM AFTER GETTING NO SALARY INCREASE WHILE BEING ON SICK LEAVE FOR 15 YEARS
A man who spent 15 years on the sick before suing his employer for not giving him a pay rise insisted he was 'not greedy'. In September 2008, Ian Clifford's health forced him to take time off from his job at the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). According to the 50-year-old, he was first dismissed on mental health grounds before receiving a stage four leukaemia diagnosis in 2012.
On his LinkedIn profile, Clifford stated that he was ‘medically retired’ in 2013. He filed a grievance with the tech giant that same year, claiming that during the five years he had been unemployed, he had not received a pay increase or any holiday pay. To avoid being fired, Clifford was able to come to a "compromise agreement" with his employer and was added to its disability plan. This meant that he was still employed by IBM but had "no obligation to work."
Workers are entitled to three-quarters of their agreed-upon earnings under this health plan, and Clifford was expected to receive £54,028 a year until he turned 65. He would have received roughly £1.5 million during his years of sick leave, according to this estimate. However, since IBM has not examined his pay since 2013, Clifford filed a lawsuit against the company in February 2022.
Using a grievance similar to his original submission, he brought the US-based company before an employment tribunal on allegations of disability discrimination. Due to punishingly high inflation, the senior IT worker claimed that he had been treated "unfavourably" because he had not received a pay raise since 2013. He also complained that the "value of the payments would soon wither."
"The plan's goal was to provide security to workers who were unable to work, which could not be accomplished if payments were permanently frozen," he stated. However, the Reading employment tribunal rejected his claim, informing the father that he was receiving "favourable treatment" and a "very substantial benefit."
Clifford previously stated that he believes it is "highly unlikely" that he will live past the age of 65, which is one of the reasons he is involved in the legal dispute. As he 'used all his savings' on the case, he had hoped that the money from his employer would enable him to ensure his son was taken care of.
Since the payments have been at a set level since April 6, 2013, which is now ten years ago, and may stay that way, the complaint is that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the Plan is not generous enough. Because disabled people receive less favourable treatment than those without disabilities, it is argued that the lack of a pay increase constitutes disability discrimination.
Because the plan only benefits the disabled, this argument is untenable.
"The fact that the Plan is not even more generous is not discrimination against people with disabilities. It is still a very significant benefit, even if the £50,000 annually is cut in half over the course of 30 years."
A man who spent 15 years on the sick before suing his employer for not giving him a pay rise insisted he was 'not greedy'. In September 2008, Ian Clifford's health forced him to take time off from his job at the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). According to the 50-year-old, he was first dismissed on mental health grounds before receiving a stage four leukaemia diagnosis in 2012.
On his LinkedIn profile, Clifford stated that he was ‘medically retired’ in 2013. He filed a grievance with the tech giant that same year, claiming that during the five years he had been unemployed, he had not received a pay increase or any holiday pay. To avoid being fired, Clifford was able to come to a "compromise agreement" with his employer and was added to its disability plan. This meant that he was still employed by IBM but had "no obligation to work."
Workers are entitled to three-quarters of their agreed-upon earnings under this health plan, and Clifford was expected to receive £54,028 a year until he turned 65. He would have received roughly £1.5 million during his years of sick leave, according to this estimate. However, since IBM has not examined his pay since 2013, Clifford filed a lawsuit against the company in February 2022.
Using a grievance similar to his original submission, he brought the US-based company before an employment tribunal on allegations of disability discrimination. Due to punishingly high inflation, the senior IT worker claimed that he had been treated "unfavourably" because he had not received a pay raise since 2013. He also complained that the "value of the payments would soon wither."
"The plan's goal was to provide security to workers who were unable to work, which could not be accomplished if payments were permanently frozen," he stated. However, the Reading employment tribunal rejected his claim, informing the father that he was receiving "favourable treatment" and a "very substantial benefit."
Clifford previously stated that he believes it is "highly unlikely" that he will live past the age of 65, which is one of the reasons he is involved in the legal dispute. As he 'used all his savings' on the case, he had hoped that the money from his employer would enable him to ensure his son was taken care of.
Since the payments have been at a set level since April 6, 2013, which is now ten years ago, and may stay that way, the complaint is that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the Plan is not generous enough. Because disabled people receive less favourable treatment than those without disabilities, it is argued that the lack of a pay increase constitutes disability discrimination.
Because the plan only benefits the disabled, this argument is untenable.
"The fact that the Plan is not even more generous is not discrimination against people with disabilities. It is still a very significant benefit, even if the £50,000 annually is cut in half over the course of 30 years."