Cakra News

IBM employee who was on sick leave for 15 years says he sued the company for financial security of his family

An IBM employee had made headlines recently for demanding a salary raise after being on sick leave for the last 15 years. He also attempted to sue the company for not raising his salary while he was off of work. The ex-IBM employee has now said that his motivation behind the same was his family.

In Short

  • Ian Clifford sued IBM for not raising his salary in 15 years.
  • He has been on sick leave since September 2008 and has not worked since then.
  • Clifford says that his motive behind the legal case was to provide financial security for family.

By Divyanshi SharmaAn IBM employee was making headlines recently for trying to sue the company for not raising his salary for the last 15 years. Named Ian Clifford, the employee had been on a sick leave since September 2008 and has been working as a Senior IT worker in the tech giant. He is based out of the UK and argued in an employment tribunal that IBM was ‘discriminating’ against him because his salary had not been increased in the last15 years. The case, however, was dismissed by the Judge who said that the employee was actually getting a ‘favourable treatment’.

advertisement

IBM employee sued company for providing financial aid to family

Now, according to a report by The Telegraph, Ian Clifford is battling stage four leukemia, and wanted to ensure financial stability for his family. He, as per the report, said that his primary reason to sue IBM was to provide financial security for his family as his salary impacts insurance, pension, and other aspects.

He was quoted as saying, “I am on chemotherapy and have been for many years and have been extremely unwell.” He also added that his son is off to college and that his ‘mortgage doesn’t go down because he is sick’. He added, “Your salary affects your death in service [insurance], pension and everything else, it was more for my family.”

“I had to use all my savings to bring this case and more and had to borrow money on a credit cardâ€æ it’s left me financially very vulnerable,” he added further.

Ian Clifford also opened up about his doubts with repect to the future and said, “My life is being curtailed, the chances of me living to 65 is highly unlikely.” He also said that taking legal action was his ‘last resort’.

On sick leave since 2018

Telegraph had earlier reported that IBM’s health plan guaranteed Clifford a salary of over 54,000 pounds (Rs 55,30,556) per year until he is 65 years old. However, he argued that this was not ‘generous enough’ because over time his salary will be worth less due to inflation

Moreover, even though Clifford is an IBM employee, he is under no obligation to work for the company since he was put on IBM’s disability plan in 2013. The last that he went to work was in 2008.

Clifford first went on sick leave in September 2008 was put on IBM’s disability plan in 2013. This plan ensures that a person who is unable to work is not dismissed, but remains an employee and is paid 75 percent of agreed earnings until recovery, retirement, or death if earlier. Also, the employee is not under any obligation to work.

In Clifford’s case, his agreed salary was 72,037 pounds, meaning he would be paid 54,028 pounds per year after a 25 percent deduction.

Case against IBM

advertisement

In February 2022, Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal claiming that he was being discriminated against due to his disability. The IBM employee said that there was no salary increase or holiday entitlement for him in comparison to other employees who would be getting their full salary during holidays.

However, all his claims were dismissed and the Judge said that he had been given a ‘substantial benefit’ and a ‘favourable treatment’.

The Telegraph report quoted the Judge saying, “It is not disability discrimination that the plan is not even more generous. Even if the value of the ã50,000 a year halved over 30 years, it is still a very substantial benefit. However, this is not the issue for, fundamentally, the terms of something given as a benefit to the disabled, and not available to those not disabled, cannot be less favourable treatment related to disability.

“It is more favourable treatment, not less.”