Sarah Biren

Sarah Biren

February 1, 2025

Man spends 15 years on sick leave then sues IBM when they wouldn’t give him a raise

Ian Clifford took sick leave in 2008 and hasn’t returned to work since. The now-50-year-old initially signed off because of poor health, which turned into IBM, the tech company he worked for, paying him a £54,000 yearly salary. According to IBM’s health plan, Clifford is owed this payment until he is 65 years old. However, he had sued the company last year, claiming disability discrimination since they had never given him a raise to keep up with inflation.

Medical retirement in 2013

Face Profile
Source: Licdn

Clifford began working for Lotus Development in 2000, 5 years after IBM acquired it. He went on sick leave in September 2008 due to poor mental health. In 2013, he “medically retired” according to his LinkedIn profile. At that point, he had contacted IBM since he hadn’t received a pay raise or holiday pay since he had taken leave. In response, the company placed him on their disability plan, which entitled him to 75% of his total salary until he retired. This plan dictates that people who are unable to work stay as employees with “no obligation to work” until they recover, retire, or pass away. 

Discrimination lawsuit against IBM

LONDON - MAY 21: IBM logo on the IBM Client Centre building on May 21, 2013 in London, UK. IBM is an American multinational technology and consulting corporation.
Source: Shutterstock

However, in February 2022, Clifford took legal action against IBM. He claimed he was being treated “unfavorably” because he’s on disability since there was no salary increase since 2013 or holiday pay. Meanwhile, employees who are not disabled were paid in full over holidays, plus they are given pay raises to keep up with inflation. 

Additionally, Clifford told the tribunal that with sky-rocketing inflation the “value of the payments would soon wither”. As he explained, “The point of the plan was to give security to employees not able to work — that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen.”

The verdict

Court of Law and Justice Trial Session: Imparcial Honorable Judge Pronouncing Sentence, striking Gavel. Focus on Mallet, Hammer. Cinematic Shot of Dramatic Not Guilty Verdict. Close-up Shot.
Source: Shutterstock

Unfortunately for Clifford, the employment tribunal dismissed his claim. The employment judge Paul Housego said that there has been no discrimination and that Clifford was actually receiving “favorable treatment,” according to the 2023 documentation

According to the record, Housego said, “That active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not, is a difference. But is not, in my judgement, a detriment caused by something arising from disability. The complaint is, in fact, that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the plan is not generous enough, because the payments have been at a fixed level since April 6, 2013, now 10 years, and may remain so.”

“It is not disability discrimination”

employee legal file
Source: Shutterstock

Housego added that the plan states there may be reviews and increases, but people have no entitlement to either. “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…”

He concluded, “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.”

Read More: This 34-year-old mom quit her job to work on her side hustle full-time—and made $300,000 in one year

Not motivated by greed

Chemotherapy drug medical holding hypodermic syringe needle injection iv bag fluid intravenous drop saline drip hospital room concept treatment palliative care.selective focus.blue light background
Source: Shutterstock

After the ruling, Clifford made an appeal against the verdict, which also failed in 2024. He also explained his reasoning to The Daily Telegraph. His primary goal was financial security for his family as he battles stage four leukemia. 

I am on chemotherapy and have been for many years and have been extremely unwell,” he said. “Your salary affects your debt service, 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.”

His last resort

Big pile of money dollars in the hand. Close up of businessman counts money in hands. American Dollars Cash Money. 100 dollars banknotes in the background.
Source: Shutterstock

Clifford added that he used credit cards and all of his savings to pay for legal fees, which has left him “financially very vulnerable”. He continued, “My life is being curtailed, the chances of me living to 65 is highly unlikely.” He said that legal action against IBM was his last resort, and he’s always thought himself a “company man”.

Although Clifford was unsuccessful, many other employees face similar situations while suing the companies they work for. It’s imperative to know your rights as a worker so you can be aware when they are being violated. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency dictates “[a]n employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work.” Lab. Code § 1197.5(b). 

Talking about salaries

Close up view of job interview in office, focus on resume writing tips, employer reviewing good cv of prepared skilled applicant, recruiter considering application, hr manager making hiring decision
Source: Shutterstock

Similarly, it’s illegal for employers to ask about salary history, especially as an excuse to pay lower wages. (Lab. Code § 1197.5(b)(3)). And although many companies use pay secrecy policies to prevent employees from comparing their pay, California has passed laws to allow these discussions since these policies often hide unfair wage gaps. Federal law also defends the rights of workers to talk about their salaries, and considers secrecy policies a violation to the right to free speech and discuss working conditions. 

Reasons for an employee lawsuit

employer or businessman showing where to sign in exchange to give money or severance
Source: Shutterstock

Underpaid workers can sue their employers, as was the grounds for Clifford’s lawsuit against IBM. These scenarios tend to involve “minimum wage, overtime, illegal deductions, or unpaid reimbursements,” according to lawyer Julian Burns King. Additionally, if the underpaying is a result of sexism or racism, a lawsuit can recover the unpaid wages, plus double as a penalty, plus recovering legal fees and additional damages like emotional distress. (Lab. Code § 1197.5(c)) 

Read More: Mom brings newborn to work then boss unknowingly snaps photo & posts remark about it online