A man who was on sick leave from his job for 15 years tried to sue the company for not giving him a pay rise during this time, claiming it was discrimination.
Ian Clifford went on sick leave from his job at IBM in the UK in September 2008 for mental health-related reasons and was still on sick leave when he was diagnosed with stage four leukemia in 2013.
He then raised a grievance with the company, stating that he had not been given a pay increase in that five-year period that he had been off work for health reasons.
Clifford reached a "compromise agreement" with his employer in April 2013, with IBM agreeing to put him on the company’s sickness-and-accident plan, which meant he was eligible to receive 75 percent of his salary until he retired or otherwise ceased to be on the plan.
This meant that he would receive £54,028 ($72,800) a year until the age of 65, from his original salary of £72,037 ($97,000).
According to The Mirror, this deal meant Clifford would have received over £1.5 million ($2 million) from IBM despite not having attended work since 2008.
He also reportedly received a further £8,685 ($11,700) to settle his complaints about holiday pay in 2013, under the caveat that he would not raise a further grievance about the same issue.
Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal in February 2022, alleging that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of disability as he had not received a pay rise in the years since he had joined the plan in 2013
The IT worker claimed that the value of his income had "withered" due to inflation.
The employment tribunal in Reading, England, dismissed his claim in March 2023, with a judge telling Clifford - who'd joined US software company, Lotus Development in 2000, shortly after it was purchased by IBM in June 1995 - that he had been given a "very substantial benefit" which amounted to "favourable treatment".
Clifford had argued that the plan was supposed to "give security to employees not able to work – that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen."
Employment Judge Paul Housego stated in response: "The claim is that the absence of increase in salary is disability discrimination because it is less favourable treatment than afforded those not disabled.
"This contention is not sustainable because only the disabled can benefit from the plan. It is not disability discrimination that the Plan is not even more generous.
"Even if the value of the £50,000 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."
Following the verdict, Clifford told the Daily Telegraph: "I am on chemotherapy and have been for many years and have been extremely unwell.
"Your salary affects your death in service [insurance], pension and everything else, it was more for my family.
"People may think, yes it's generous, but firstly those amounts are gross not taxed. ... I do pay National Insurance on those amounts.
"I have a son [who is] off to university. Your mortgage doesn't go down because you are sick."
He also claimed to have spent £30,000 ($40,400) bringing the case against IBM.