He claims he was discriminated against
A man who has been on sick leave for 15 years is trying to sue them for not giving him a raise.
Ian Clifford took a medical leave from IBM in September 2008 for mental health-related reasons and was still at work in 2013 after being diagnosed with stage 4 leukemia.
Clifford, 50, then filed a grievance with his employer, complaining that he had not received a raise during the five-year period.
In April 2013, Clifford entered into a “compromise agreement” with IBM, which meant he was placed on the company's sickness and accident plan, which entitles him to receive 75% of his salary until he retires or is otherwise injured. Reason is no longer involved in the program. .
Under the plan, he will receive £54,028 (or $67,732) a year until he turns 65, with a salary of £72,037.
The Mirror calculates the deal means Clifford will receive more than £1.5m from the company, despite not having worked since 2008.
He was also paid £8,685 in 2013 to resolve his holiday pay complaint and agreed not to make further claims over the same issue.
In February 2022, Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal, claiming disability discrimination claims similar to those in his 2013 complaint.
The IT employee claimed he had been treated unfavorably because he had not received a pay rise since joining the scheme in 2013, which he believed was disability discrimination. He believes inflation is causing the value of his income to “wither”.
An employment tribunal in Reading, Berkshire, dismissed his claim in March 2023, with the judge telling Clifford he had received “very generous benefits” and “preferential treatment”.
Clifford began working for US software company Lotus Development in 2000, shortly after the company was acquired by IBM in June 1995.
In his case, Clifford argued that the focus of the program was to “provide coverage for employees who are unable to work — a goal that cannot be achieved if payments are permanently frozen.”
Employment judge Paul Housego found: “It is alleged that the failure to increase pay was disability discrimination because it treated non-disabled people less favorably.
“This argument is unsustainable because only disabled people benefit from the scheme. It is not ableism that the scheme is not generous enough.
“Even if the value of £50,000 a year halved in 30 years, it would still be a very substantial gain.
“However, this is not a problem because fundamentally the terms of benefits given to disabled people as benefits to disabled people, as opposed to those available to non-disabled people, cannot be less favorable treatment in relation to the disability.
“It's more favorable treatment, not less.”
Related Links:
Man wins nearly $1 million in Lotto prize after poor performance at job
Elon Musk says he will donate $1 million to Wikipedia if it changes its name to D***pedia
Woman returns from vacation and finds her home accidentally destroyed
#Man #medical #leave #years #sues #IBM #giving #raise
