Where's the raise? Man on sick leave for 15 years sues IBM for no salary hike

A senior IT professional who has been on sick leave since 2008 sued his company for discrimination because he did not receive a raise, as per a Telegraph report. According to the report, Ian Clifford works at IBM but has been unwell for the past 15 years. According to his LinkedIn page, he has been 'medically retired' since 2013.

He claimed, however, that he was a victim of 'disability discrimination' since his income had not been increased in the 15 years he had been unable to work. Under an IBM health plan, the IT professional earns more than 54,000 pounds (US$67,300) each year and is assured to do so until the age of 65.

However, the employee said that the health plan was ''not generous enough.''

Additionally, Clifford went on sick leave for the first time in September 2008 and remained so until 2013, when he filed a grievance. In response to his complaint, IBM offered him a 'compromise arrangement' in which he was placed on the company's disability plan rather than being fired. A person who is unable to work is not fired, but rather remains an employee with ''no obligation to work'' under the plan.

An employee on the plan has a 'right' to receive 75 per cent of agreed wages until recuperation, retirement, or death, whichever comes first. In his case, the agreed-upon compensation was 72,037 pounds, which meant that beginning in 2013, he would be paid 54,028 pounds each year after deducting 25 per cent.

For more than 30 years, the strategy had been in place.

He brought IBM to an employment tribunal in February 2022, claiming disability discrimination.

He said, "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, his plans were dashed when an employment tribunal rejected his claims, with a judge telling him he had received a "very substantial benefit" and "favourable treatment."

“That active employee may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not, is a difference, but is not, in my judgment, a detriment caused by something arising from disability. The complaint is in fact that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the plan is not generous enough because the payments have been at a fixed level since April 6, 2013, now 10 years, and may remain so." Judge Housego said.

''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. Even if the value of the £50,000 (US$62,300) a year halved over 30 years, it is still a very substantial benefit,'' he added.