An employee sued IBM after the company refused to give him a raise even though he had been on medical leave since 2008 and was not working.
Ian Clifford, from the UK, was an employee of tech giant IBM but has been unable to work for them for 15 years since he was fired on mental health grounds in 2008.
The company reached an agreement with Clifford, according to which he remained an employee of IBM but had “no obligation to work”.
An employee sued IBM over a lack of raises even though he wasn’t working
In 2013, he was placed on a disability plan after complaining that he had not received a raise since leaving the job. The health plan was designed 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), even though he had not worked a day in 15 years.
It was reported that the man will continue to earn this amount until the age of 65, which will equate to more than 1.9 million dollars.
However, this was not enough for Clifford; this employee sued IBM again, going to an employment tribunal and accusing the company of discrimination on the basis of disability. He was unhappy that his salary had not increased in the last 10 years.
Clifford said he had been treated “unfavorably” because he had not received a pay rise since 2013 and warned that “the value of the payments will soon decrease” due to high levels of inflation.
He told The Telegraph in 2023 that “the purpose of the plan was to provide security for disabled employees; this is not achieved if payments remain frozen forever’.
How did the judges rule?
However, things did not go in Clifford’s favor after the employment tribunal rejected his claim. Clifford was actually told what we are all probably thinking, that he had a “very substantial advantage” and was receiving “favorable treatment”.
Dismissing the case, employment judge Paul Housego said “active employees can get pay rises but inactive employees cannot, it is a difference but it is not, in my view, a disadvantage caused by something arising from the disability”.
“The claim is that the absence of a pay rise is discrimination on the basis of disability because it is less favorable treatment than that accorded to those who do not have such problems. This claim is not supported because only disabled people can benefit from the plan. It is not discrimination on the basis of disability that the plan is not even more generous than that”, declared the judge.
The judge also stated that even if the $50,000 per year were to halve over thirty years, it would still be a “very substantial benefit.”
Clifford’s LinkedIn profile says he is “medically retired” since 2013, notes Unilad.
Source: www.go4it.ro
