A UK IT worker, Ian Clifford, who spent 15 years on sick leave from IBM, lost his legal bid for a pay raise. Clifford sued the tech giant, claiming disability discrimination after his £54,028 annual salary had not increased since 2013. An employment tribunal dismissed his case in March 2023, ruling that he had received "very substantial benefit" from the company's disability plan.
Lengthy Absence and Disability Plan
Ian Clifford began working for Lotus Development in 2000, a company later acquired by IBM. He went on sick leave in September 2008, initially due to mental health issues. In 2012, Clifford received a diagnosis of stage four leukemia. By April 2013, he reached a "compromise agreement" with IBM, which placed him on the company's sickness and accident plan, also known as a disability plan.[odditycentral+13]
Under this agreement, Clifford remained an IBM employee with "no obligation to work." The plan entitled him to receive 75 percent of his agreed earnings until he turned 65 or otherwise ceased to be on the plan. His original salary was £72,037, meaning he received an annual payment of £54,028. Reports indicate that by age 65, he would have received more than £1.5 million from IBM without performing any work. Additionally, in 2013, he received £8,685 to settle previous holiday pay grievances.[ladbible+20]
The Grievance and Legal Action
Clifford first raised a grievance in 2013, complaining about the lack of a pay raise and holiday pay during his initial five years off work. Despite the substantial benefits of the disability plan, he initiated legal action against IBM in February 2022. The senior IT worker brought his case to an employment tribunal in Reading, Berkshire, alleging disability discrimination.[odditycentral+11]
Hisprimary argument centered on the fact that his salary had remained frozen since 2013. Clifford contended that the value of his payments was diminishing due to high inflation, thereby failing to provide the financial security the disability plan was intended to offer. He argued that this constituted "unfavorable treatment" compared to active employees who received salary increases. Clifford specifically sought a modest 2.5 percent pay rise for the period between 2013 and 2022. IBM's lawyers, in turn, argued there was "no obligation" for the company to increase his disability salary. IBM itself declined to comment on the case.[ladbible+35]
Tribunal's Decision and Judge's Reasoning
Employment Judge Paul Housego presided over the tribunal. In March 2023, the judge dismissed Clifford's claim, finding no evidence of disability discrimination. Judge Housego stated that the disability plan offered a "very substantial benefit" and constituted "favourable treatment" for Clifford.[odditycentral+12]
Thejudge emphasized that the plan was exclusively for disabled employees, and therefore, its terms not being "even more generous" did not amount to discrimination. Judge Housego clarified, "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." He further noted that even if the annual £50,000 value halved over 30 years, it would still represent a significant benefit.[odditycentral+18]
Clifford's Perspective and Appeal
Ian Clifford, who was 50 years old at the time of the tribunal, maintained that he was "not greedy" in pursuing the lawsuit. He explained his motivation was to provide financial security for his family, particularly his son, who was preparing for university. Clifford revealed that he had spent over £30,000 to bring the case, exhausting his savings and incurring credit card debt, which left him "financially very vulnerable."[nationalpost+9]
He also spoke about his health, stating he had been on chemotherapy for many years and was "extremely unwell," adding that it was "highly unlikely" he would live to age 65. Despite the tribunal's ruling, Clifford has lodged an appeal against the decision. He stated that while people might consider his actions greedy, the guaranteed payment was a benefit he expected as part of his employment.[nationalpost+9]
The case highlights the complexities of long-term disability plans and the legal interpretation of employee rights concerning pay adjustments during extended absences. The tribunal's decision reaffirms that while such plans offer substantial protection, they do not necessarily obligate employers to provide ongoing salary increases comparable to those of active employees.[nationalpost+2]
