A man who stayed off work for 15 years later sued his employer for not granting him a pay increase.
Ian Clifford went on sick leave from IBM in September 2008 for mental-health reasons.
He remained away from work in 2013 and by then had been diagnosed with stage-four leukaemia.
Clifford, who was 50, raised a grievance saying he had not received a pay rise during that five-year spell.
In April 2013 he signed a “compromise agreement” with IBM that placed him on the firm’s sickness-and-accident scheme.
The plan entitled him to receive 75% of his salary until he retired or was no longer on the scheme.
Under the arrangement he would get £54,028 a year — quoted as $67,732 — until age 65, based on a salary of £72,037.
The Mirror calculated that this deal meant Clifford would have received more than £1.5 million from the company despite not having worked since 2008.
He also received £8,685 to resolve holiday-pay complaints in 2013, and agreed not to bring further grievances on the same matters.
In February 2022 Clifford brought a claim against IBM at an employment tribunal, alleging disability discrimination similar to his 2013 grievance.
He said he was treated unfavourably because he had not had a pay rise since joining the scheme in 2013, arguing inflation had caused his income to “wither”.
An employment tribunal in Reading, Berkshire, dismissed the claim in March 2023.
The judge told Clifford he had been given a “very substantial benefit” and “favourable treatment”.
Clifford began working for US software firm Lotus Development in 2000, after the company was bought by IBM in June 1995.
He argued the purpose of the plan was to “give security to employees not able to work – that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen.”
Employment Judge Paul Housego said:
“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.”