IT worker on sick leave for 15 years sues over no pay rise

 'It's not greedy to want a pay rise': Terminally ill IBM worker who sued company for not raising his £54,000 salary while he was off work for 15 years claims he was just trying to take care of his family

Credit: LinkedIn

A terminally ill IBM worker who sued the tech giant for not raising his £54,000 salary for the 15 years he was on sick leave said 'it's not greedy to want a pay rise' as he spoke of his fears for his family's finances.

Due to his lack of wage rise, a senior IT employee who has been on sick leave since 2008 attempted to file a discrimination lawsuit against a major tech company.

Ian Clifford alleged that IBM had discriminated against him due to his disability because he had not received a pay rise in the fifteen years that he had been unemployed.

The IT professional is promised a salary of almost £54,000 per year under an IBM health plan, which means he will get over £1.5 million until he reaches 65.

But still. According to Mr. Clifford, it was "not generous enough." He predicted that inflation would cause his £54,028 salary to "wither" over time, The Telegraph reported.

An Employment Tribunal in Reading, Berks heard Mr Clifford, a former King's College London student, who worked for Lotus Development until it was bought by IBM in 2000. He took sick leave in 2008 and was still out of work in 2013 when he lodged a complaint.

Mr Clifford claimed that he did not receive a salary increase or holiday pay over the five year period. In April 2013, when he was in his 30s, a ‘compromise arrangement’ was reached and Mr Clifford’s claims were settled by him being placed on the firm’s disability scheme.

The hearing was told that, under the plan, an employee who cannot work is not fired but remains employed and is not required to work.

Employees on the plan have a right to receive 75% of their agreed earnings up to the date of recovery, retirement or death, if earlier.

Mr Clifford's agreed salary in the plan was £72.037 per annum from 2013, meaning he would have received £54.028 per annum after 25% deduction.

The plan covered him for over 30 years, until he reached the age of 65, at which point he would have received a total of over £1,500,000.

He also received £8.685 to settle holiday pay claims in 2013, as well as agreeing never to raise another grievance relating to the same matters.

Related: Fake' lawyer 'who won all 26 of his cases despite no legal training' is arrested in Kenya

But in February 2022 Mr Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal with new incapacity discrimination claims mirroring his preceding grievance.

He stated he was treated “unfavourably” without a income boom in view of 2013 or vacation entitlement and as compared himself to a non-disabled worker who might have been paid their complete income throughout holidays.

Mr Clifford stated that with inflation now jogging at extra than 10 in line with cent the “price of the bills might quickly wither”.

He stated: “The factor of the plan is to offer safety to personnel now no longer capable of work – that become now no longer done if bills had been frozen for all time frozen.”

Judge Paul Housego, however, dismissed his case on the grounds that the difference between active employees receiving pay increases and inactive employees not receiving them is not a form of discrimination due to disability.

He also ruled that the complaint was based on the fact that the benefits of being inactive on the plan were not generous enough, as the payments had been at the same level for the past 10 years and could continue to be so. 

Housego went on to argue that the lack of an increase in salary was a form of disability discrimination, as it was less favourable than what was given to non-disabled employees. He also said that this argument was not sustainable, as the plan was not more generous than what was already available to disabled people.

"It is still a very significant benefit, even if the value of the £50,000 per year split in half over the course of 30 years."

"But this is not the issue because, fundamentally, something that is provided as a benefit to the disabled and not available to the non-disabled cannot be treated less favourably because of a disability," Judge Housego went on.

Not less, but more advantageous treatment is provided.

According to Mr. Clifford's LinkedIn profile, he was born and raised in Guildford, Surrey, is retired from medicine, and has a son.

Related: Conman faked having a heart attack in 20 restaurants to avoid paying the bill