IBM Employee, On Sick Leave For 15 Years, Sues Company For Family’s Financial Security

A senior IT worker in the UK, who has been on sick leave since 2008, took the employer to court for discrimination because he didn’t receive a salary hike. According to Telegraph, Ian Clifford is employed by tech giant IBM but he’s been sick for the past 15 years. The case, however, was dismissed by the Judge who said that the employee was actually getting “favourable treatment.”

Now, speaking to the media house, Ian shared that he is battling stage four leukaemia and wanted to ensure financial security for his family as his salary covers insurance, pension and other aspects. It is worth noting that Ian’s LinkedIn profile states that he has medically retired since 2013.

The 50-year-old man shared that he has been on chemotherapy for many years and is extremely unwell. Ian’s son is off to college and his mortgage doesn’t go down because he is sick. “Your salary affects your death in service [insurance], pension and everything else, it was more for my family,” he added. Ian also revealed that he is financially vulnerable as he has used all his savings in his treatment and the case and had to borrow money on a credit card.

“My life is being curtailed, the chances of me living to 65 is highly unlikely,” Ian said. He also added that legal action was his “last resort.”

As per IBM’s health plan, Ian was guaranteed to be paid 75 per cent of his salary which is around Rs 55,30, 556 per year until he is 65. However, due to the rise of the inflation rate in the country, he argued that this was not enough and that over time his salary would be worth less.

IBM’s disability plan ensures an employee who is unable to work due to sickness or accident is not dismissed but remains as an employee of the company and is paid 75 per cent of the agreed earning until retirement, recovery or death if earlier and the employee doesn’t have any obligation to work.

In February, last year, Ian took IBM to an employment tribunal claiming that he was being discriminated against due to his disability and had no hike in salary or holiday entitlement for him in comparison to other employees in comparison to others. However, the judge hearing the case said that it is not disability discrimination and that the plan is not even more generous.

“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,” he added.