A UK-based IBM software employee, Ian Clifford, went on long-term sick leave in September 2008 due to mental health issues and was later diagnosed with a serious illness, leading to an absence from work that continued for years.
IBM Employee’s Long-Term Sick Leave Leads to Unusual Employment Case
Despite being away from work, he remained employed by IBM and received sick leave-related support, creating a situation that many would consider an unusually stable financial safety arrangement.
After five years of absence, in 2013, Clifford filed a formal complaint against IBM, arguing that his salary had stayed unchanged throughout his time on leave and that he had not received any pay increments.
Later in 2013, both parties reached a settlement under IBM’s Sickness and Accident Plan, which guaranteed Clifford 75% of his last drawn salary every year until he turned 65.
Based on his salary at the time, this agreement provided him with annual payments exceeding £54,000, and media reports estimated that he could receive more than £1.5 million in total by retirement without returning to work.
The settlement also included additional payment to resolve outstanding holiday pay claims, and in exchange, Clifford agreed to close the dispute.
Nearly a decade later, in 2022, Clifford initiated legal action again, this time approaching an employment tribunal and alleging disability discrimination by IBM.
Legal Claim Over Inflation-Adjusted Payments and Alleged Disability Discrimination
His claim centered on the argument that IBM had not increased his yearly payments to account for inflation since 2013, which he said reduced the real value of his income over time and amounted to unfair treatment linked to his disability.
In 2023, the employment tribunal rejected his case, with the judge concluding that the existing payment arrangement was itself a “very substantial benefit” and a form of “favourable treatment” available specifically because of his disabled status.
The ruling emphasized that other non-disabled employees did not have access to such a long-term guaranteed payment plan, and therefore the arrangement could not be considered discriminatory.
The court’s position was that a person cannot claim discrimination for failing to receive additional advantages on top of a special benefit created specifically for them.
The tribunal viewed the guaranteed annual payments not as a frozen salary, but as a protected financial support system that functioned as a privileged arrangement rather than a standard employment entitlement.
The case illustrates how disputes over workplace support, disability accommodations, and perceptions of fairness can evolve into prolonged legal battles, drawing attention to complex boundaries between employee rights and corporate obligations.
