Featured Image Credit: LinkedIn/Nikolas Kokovlis/Getty Images/Paul Morris/Bloomberg
Topics: Technology, Community, UK News
Mia Williams
Topics: Technology, Community, UK News
A man who has been on sick leave since 2008 attempted to sue the company he was employed by after they refused to give him a pay rise whilst he wasn’t working.
Ian Clifford, from the UK, was employed by tech giant IBM, but wasn't able to work for them for 15 years since being signed off on mental health grounds in 2008.
The company came to an agreement with Clifford, which meant he was still an employee of IBM, but had ‘no obligation to work’.
He was then put on a disability plan in 2013 after he complained that he hadn’t received a pay rise since he first left work.
Advert
The health plan was in place to ensure that employees were entitled to earn three-quarters of their agreed earnings, which meant that Clifford was earning an annual salary of £54,000 ($70,447) - despite not working a single day in 15 years.
It was reported he will continue to earn this amount until he is 65, which will equate to over $1.9 million.
However, this seemingly wasn’t enough for Clifford, who took IBM to an employment tribunal on the grounds of disability discrimination.
He was unhappy that his pay had not increased in the last 10 years, and attempted to sue them.
Clifford said he had been treated 'unfavourably' as he'd received no salary increase since 2013, and warned that the 'value of the payments would soon wither' due to punishingly high levels of inflation.
He said to The Telegraph in 2023: “The point of the plan was to give security to employees not able to work - that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen.”
However, things didn’t go in Clifford's favour after the employment tribunal dismissed his claim.
Clifford was actually told what we are probably all thinking - that he was getting a 'very substantial benefit' and receiving 'favourable treatment'.
In the case dismissal, Employment Judge Paul Housego said: “Active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not, is a difference, but is not, in my judgement, a detriment caused by something arising from disability.
“The claim is that the absence of an increase in salary is disability discrimination because it is less favourable treatment than afforded those not disabled.
“This contention is not sustainable because only the disabled can benefit from the plan. It is not disability discrimination that the plan is not even more generous.”
The judge claimed that even if the value of $50,000 a year halved over thirty years, it would still be a very ‘substantial benefit’.
Cliford's LinkedIn profile says he has been ‘medically retired’ since 2013.