A guy who has been on sick leave for 15 years filed a lawsuit against his employer for failing to increase his wages.
According to Ian Clifford’s LinkedIn profile, he has been employed by the technology firm IBM since 2003.
He purportedly became “medically retired” in 2013, however he actually began using sick days in 2008.
He is now taking steps to file a lawsuit against his company.
Clifford is suing IBM because the business did not increase his pay to keep up with inflation.
Clifford and IBM came to a “compromise agreement,” under which Clifford was added to the company’s disability plan in order to prevent his dismissal.
He continued to be an employee despite having “no obligation to work” because of this.
An employee may be paid three-quarters of their agreed-upon salary as part of the company’s health plan.
Accordingly, he would receive a fixed payment of £54,000 ($67,550), or 75% of his £72,037 ($90,144) annual wage.
He will continue to get this compensation until he becomes 65, which means that he may collect about £1.5 million in sick pay.
Clifford, however, filed a lawsuit against his employer because he was dissatisfied with his pay during the previous ten years.
He sued IBM in an employment tribunal last year over a similar worry to the last time he complained about his wages because he believed he was the victim of disability discrimination.
He claimed that he had been treated “unfavourably” and had not received a pay rise since 2013 during a tribunal hearing in Reading, England.
Clifford continues, “I was also not given any holiday entitlement.” He then contrasted himself with non-disabled workers, who, according to reports, receive their full pay on holidays.
Ian Clifford Ian Clifford sued IBM for 15 years for not increasing his sick pay. Ian Clifford through LinkedIn, credit
Clifford further informed the panel that the value of the payments will soon deteriorate due to the current rate of inflation, which is over 10%.
The purpose of the scheme, he continues (as reported by The Mirror), “was to give security to employees who could not work; that was not achieved if payments were permanently frozen.”
The panel rejected Clifford’s claims despite his protests; Judge Paul Housego asserted that Clifford is receiving a “very substantial benefit” from his employment.
“Active employees may receive pay increases, but inactive employees do not,” he claims.
“The argument is that the lack of a pay rise constitutes disability discrimination because it offers less favourable treatment than is provided to individuals who are not impaired.
“This claim cannot be supported because the scheme exclusively benefits the disabled.
“The fact that the proposal is not even more generous is not disability discrimination.
“Even if the worth of the £50,000 annually decreased by half over 30 years, it would still be a very sizable benefit.
The parameters of anything provided as a benefit to the disabled and unavailable to those who are not disabled, however, cannot fundamentally be less advantageous treatment connected to disability.