A case from 2008 was reopened in 2023 when a man, who went on sick leave from IBM for over 15 years, sued them for not giving him a hike. He said, “It was for my family”, and dragged the tech giant to the court despite the unusual case. Here’s what happened later.
Ian Clifford joined IBM’s Lotus Development in 2000 as an IT worker but in September 2008, he went on a ‘long’ sick leave for mental-health-related reasons. The man was still off-duty till 2013 after being diagnosed with stage-four leukemia. Soon, he lodged a grievance against IBM stating that he had not received any pay hike or even a ‘holiday pay’ for the past 5 years. To address the issue peacefully, IBM put Clifford in their Disability Plan. Under this, he was guaranteed a 75% pay from his agreed earnings. This promised that he would receive $67,732 out of his £72,037 salary per year until he turned 65. This meant that Clifford would receive a sum of over $1.5 million till that age.
Despite the substantial settlement, the man believed that he was receiving ‘unfair treatment’ as the company was not giving him a regular pay raise ‘to keep up with the inflation’. He compared his situation to his non-disabled colleagues and argued that the value of the ‘compromise agreement’ he was receiving would eventually diminish. With this in mind, Clifford again took IBM to the employment tribunal in 2022 claiming disability discrimination. However, this claim was dismissed in 2023 with the judge stating that the IT worker was treated favorably as he was given a ‘very substantial benefit’. The judge went on dismissing Clifford’s claims calling it a “more favorable treatment, in fact, not less.”
Following the court ruling, Clifford decided to go public to open up about his reasons for filing the case and his opinions on the verdict. He revealed that his battle with leukemia is still ongoing and his primary motivation to pursue a legal battle against his employer was to provide security for his family. He also mentioned how his ‘low’ salary has been affecting his financial aspects including pension and insurance.
Who do you think is correct in this case -the employee or the employer?
