A man who has been on sick leave since 2008 attempted to sue his employer after they refused to offer him a pay increase while he was not working.
Ian Clifford, from the United Kingdom, was employed by computer giant IBM but was unable to work for them for 15 years after being signed off on mental health grounds in 2008.
The business reached a deal with Clifford, stating that he was still an IBM employee but had ‘no responsibility to work’.
He was then placed on a disability plan in 2013 after complaining that he hadn’t gotten a wage increase since leaving employment.
The health plan was in place to ensure that employees were entitled to three-quarters of their agreed-upon earnings, which meant Clifford was paid an annual salary of £54,000 ($70,447) despite not working a single day in 15 years.
It was claimed that he will continue to earn this sum until he is 65, which will be more than $1.9 million.
However, this did not appear to be enough for Clifford, who filed an employment tribunal complaint against IBM alleging handicap discrimination.
He was upset that his income had not grown in the previous ten years and attempted to sue them.
Clifford claimed he had been treated ‘unfavorably’ because he had not received a salary raise since 2013, and warned that the ‘worth of the payments would soon wither’ due to punishingly high inflation rates.
He told The Telegraph in 2023, “The point of the plan was to give security to employees who were unable to work – that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen.”
Clifford’s suit was dismissed by the employment tribunal, thus things did not go his way.
Clifford was told what we were all thinking: he was receiving a’very large benefit’ and ‘favourable treatment’.
In the case dismissal, Employment Judge Paul Housego stated: “Active employees may receive pay raises, but inactive employees do not; this is a distinction, but it is not, in my opinion, a detriment caused by something arising from disability.”
“The contention is that the lack of a pay rise constitutes disability discrimination because it provides less favorable treatment than individuals who are not disabled.
“This argument is unsustainable because only the disabled will profit from the proposal. The fact that the plan is not more generous does not constitute disability discrimination.”
The judge claimed that even if the worth of $50,000 per year was reduced in half over thirty years, it would still constitute a’substantial benefit’.
Cliford’s LinkedIn page states that he has been’medically retired’ since 2013.
Radiant TV, offering to elevate your entertainment game! Movies, TV series, exclusive interviews, music, and more—download now on various devices, including iPhones, Androids, smart TVs, Apple TV, Fire Stick, and more.
