A senior IT worker on sick leave since 2008 tried to sue a tech giant for discrimination because he hasn’t been given a pay rise.
Ian Clifford claimed he was the victim of disability discrimination by IBM because his salary had not been increased in the 15 years he had been off work.
Under an IBM health plan, the IT specialist receives more than £54,000 a year and is guaranteed to receive the salary until he is 65 – meaning he will pocket more than £1.5 million.
However. Mr Clifford argued it was “not generous enough”. He said that his £54,028 salary would “wither” over time through inflation.
An employment tribunal in Reading, Berks, heard Mr Clifford, who studied at King’s College London, started working for Lotus Development in 2000 before it was acquired by IBM.
He went on sick leave in September 2008 and was still off work in 2013, when he raised a grievance.
**Reached an agreement**
Mr Clifford complained that he had not received a pay rise and or any holiday pay for the five-year period.
In April 2013, when Mr Clifford was in his mid-30s, a “compromise agreement” was reached and his complaints were settled by putting him on the company’s disability plan.
Under the plan, a person who is unable to work is not dismissed but remains an employee and has “no obligation to work”, the hearing was told.
An employee on the plan has a right until recovery, retirement, or death if earlier, to be paid 75 per cent of agreed earnings.
In Mr Clifford’s case his agreed salary was £72,037, meaning from 2013 he would be paid £54,028 per year after 25 per cent was deducted.
The plan was fixed in place for more than 30 years until he reached retirement age at 65, meaning he will receive a total of more than £1.5 million.
He was also paid £8,685 to settle his holiday pay complaints in 2013 and agreed never to raise a further grievance about the same issues.
But in February 2022 Mr Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal with new disability discrimination claims mirroring his previous grievance.
He said he had been treated “unfavourably” with no salary increase since 2013 or holiday entitlement and compared himself to a non-disabled employee who would have been paid their full salary during holidays.
Mr Clifford said that with inflation now running at more than 10 per cent the “value of the payments would soon wither”.
He said: “The point of the plan was to give security to employees not able to work – that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen.”
**‘It is not discrimination’**
However, employment Judge Paul Housego dismissed his case.
Judge Housego said: “That active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not, is a difference, but is not, in my judgment, 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.
“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.”
Judge Housego continued: “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.”
A LinkedIn profile for Mr Clifford states he is from Guildford, Surrey, is medically retired and has a son.
Would be interesting to know what is his disability, but in any case, he should count himself lucky for not having to live on benefits.
[removed]
At least with that level of salary, hopefully this wasn’t covered by legal aid.
Ian Clifford will pocket more than £1.5 million.
However. Mr Clifford argued it was “not generous enough”.
I’ll get my tiny violin out lol
[deleted]
No mention at all of what he was medically retired over…
He is incredibly lucky.
When I became disabled I was sacked from my job of 17 years and given a months pay in lieu of notice.
As I looked for another job I could do I joined a very large IT company, and quickly realised they hire a large percentage of disabled people because the physical demands aren’t very high.
I don’t know the details of this man’s disability, but I do know firsthand a lot can be worked around, especially with working from home.
Who benefits from the jealous frenzy the Telegraph is whipping up amongst lower paid (than the article’s IT guy) wage slaves!
I’ve been out of work for four years because I have cancer and have the same 75% insurance this guy has. It’s making my last years less stressful. What a twat.
I bet he’s also on state benefits like PIP.
Reading the details and I don’t think he has grounds. He made a 30 year compromise deal (no details of this are shared) where he is not obligated to work and this will be paid until recovery or retirement.
Later he complained about holidays and they paid him again as a settlement on the grounds he didn’t raise any further complaints.
I don’t know the details and I guess ibm legal team have decided this is better for them, but the guy maybe needs to let it go. He agreed on the terms and has been paid again to go away.
If he was on 50k per year in 2008 he was likely very good at whatever his role was within IBM.
Looks like he took a disability scheme that was provided by his employer and wants an inflationary increase on top of that, something his employer agreed and signed off for without a percentage increase for inflation. It’s the first time I’ve saw this personally as I work in technology but certainly isn’t common at all among people. At his age you’re normally going into the realm of being a technology architect or moving into management.
The UK doesn’t have enough experienced IT, Infrastructure, cloud or software developers so those with a number of years experience are worth their weight in gold and while I might not know the extent of the guy’s disability he’s free to do so as he wishes.
I’m fascinated by what scheme he is being paid under. 30 years guaranteed with no obligation to work? I’ve not come across such a thing before.
What on earth qualifies you to get a salary from a company until you retire? Makes no mention in the article but if the company were liable for his injury that caused disability then I would say inflation increases should be applied to his salary as it’s their fault he can’t work.
Just become an IT project manager and do fuck all anyway.
Saw the headline and thought “go on mate, why the fuck not?” And then read the comments and everyone is angry at him for it? I can guarantee if it was you, you would do the exact same thing. Reeks of jealousy. Fair play to the man. I bet he’d rather be working and earning more but he can’t so may aswel get what he can.
This being from the rag that it is, is just something designed to make people angry and blame things on remainers and labour
Headline made me want to tell him to do one, but reading it, if the company agreed to this in the first place, I think pay rise strictly in line with inflation makes sense.
His income might be a pittance by the time he retires and will put him at a massive disadvantage when he reaches that age even though the company deemed his skills valuable enough for a 55k job in the early 2000s and agreed to pay him until he retired. I don’t see why he should suffer as a result because of inflation if it was agreed he cannot work, and his company agreed to this. It’s almost as if the company planned on it being a lessening debt over time because of inflation, so they suffer less from it over time, whereas this guy does suffer. I don’t see why he should
This seems like one of those situations where you just keep your head down and take the money…
That article lacks some quite crucial details for a full understanding of the story.
– what is the disability that doesn’t allow him to work?
– did it happen while he was performing his duties for Lotus or IBM or was it a known condition when he was hired?
– why is he not able to switch to a different position within the company that allows him to work remotely for example if his disability is a physical one, point one could answer this for me
– would like to hear his side of the story. He was not interviewed for this article
It’s an extreme case really, the headline is quite inflammatory and the article doesn’t provide much in the way of information to abate the anger most would feel when reading it.
These agreements are common in the tech/IT industry – I have one. If I was struck down unable to work tomorrow I’m covered at 75% of my annual salary at that time until I retire. Depending on what happened I may also get an extra year’s pay as a lump sum paid out on injury.
It’s a GOOD THING this is in place and a BAD THING that there are a LOT of other large companies – retail, logistics etc etc – that _could_ afford to put the policies in place for their employees but simply don’t. And THAT is how you end up with more of the population needing government assistance, because the same companies that have been tax-avoiding are grinding the population down to the bone on minimum wage and then passing the buck to the gov when they can’t work anymore.
This guy isn’t your enemy. The family on benefits with Sky TV and an all-inclusive booked to Tenerife isn’t your enemy. You’ve been conditioned to get angry over what? This article isn’t even about gov welfare yet most of the comments are – it’s working. GIVE YOUR HEADS A WOBBLE.
He accepted a settlement under a disability plan that was enumerated in strict salary terms in line with his employment contract. He had every opportunity to negotiate COLA or inflation-adjustment on a periodic basis upon onboarding.
It happens all the time.
IBM is fulfilling their end of the contract to the letter. Does inflationary pressure bite into that compensation? Yes. Does it suck? Absolutely. But it’s what he bargained for when he negotiated the terms of his hiring in 2000. A court is not going to read into that contract an implied term that he’s entitled to COLA adjustments, nor should it.
I know my dad took the piss and went off with ‘stress’ for 5 years, then took early retirement with a final salary pension. He was fully able to work the whole time.
I guess you’ve got to wonder what his background is. Maybe he was made disabled by working there, and this was a settlement to stop them from being sued. Maybe he had a life changing illness that is covered under some medical rules. Maybe he owns IP that IBM are using.
But it looks like he graduated in 2000, did 3 years at Lotus and then 5 years at IBM. Now he’s got 15 years of ‘not’ working for IBM. I guess it’s down to what they said he’d get in his contract. Seems pretty generous however you look at it. Most people would just have to live of DLA.
His claim was void from the beginning as he agreed to the terms imposed by the respondent upon accepting their offer in 2013.
He asked to go onto the scheme and they accepted, on the conditions stated – one of which was no guarantee of inflationary increases – which he agreed to. There were also several clauses it seems where he agreed to not bring further claims relating to or mirroring the prior settlement.
I don’t blame him for trying but it’s clear the ruling in this case was accurate and he had no case to bring. He waived his rights to further claims, and accepted (although probably didn’t expect) that there was no guarantee the company would increase his payments over time.
Now, whether or not this amounts to discrimination is up for debate and I’m not sure myself where I stand tbh.
For those saying he’d be entitled to PIP or other disability state benefits, I noted this caveat in the ruling:
> He would be paid 75% of OTE salary (less Employment Support Allowance or single person’s social security incapacity benefit) […].
I’m curious (for anyone legally trained or otherwise educated) what this means.
Does this apply to ESA and incapacity benefit exclusively? Or does it mean he’d be prohibited from claiming benefits such as PIP (or if not prohibited, would his payments decrease in line with any PIP/disability benefits).
There’s a few people arguing his entitlement to state disability benefits on top so I’m curious how this caveat affects things.
Well this totally isn’t meant to be an outrage piece coming from the Telegraph.
Has anyone considered he could have a progressive illness, maybe a poor prognosis (alright he’s still here 15 years later), but just wants to get as much as he can go make sure his wife and kids are comfortable if maybe he’s had some bad news? Can’t blame the guy for trying, he’s taking what he’s entitled to and tried for a bit more. Who doesn’t wanna fist the asshole of a big corp? Good on him and those of you bitching, put down your newspapers, switch off the TV and go sit somewhere quiet and consider how you wish you would be treated by a company if you ever ended up seriously disabled. 🙂 Maybe it’s some good karma he really deserved. You never know the full story.
26 comments
Article contents:
*By Telegraph Reporters, 12 May 2023 • 9:54pm*
A senior IT worker on sick leave since 2008 tried to sue a tech giant for discrimination because he hasn’t been given a pay rise.
Ian Clifford claimed he was the victim of disability discrimination by IBM because his salary had not been increased in the 15 years he had been off work.
Under an IBM health plan, the IT specialist receives more than £54,000 a year and is guaranteed to receive the salary until he is 65 – meaning he will pocket more than £1.5 million.
However. Mr Clifford argued it was “not generous enough”. He said that his £54,028 salary would “wither” over time through inflation.
An employment tribunal in Reading, Berks, heard Mr Clifford, who studied at King’s College London, started working for Lotus Development in 2000 before it was acquired by IBM.
He went on sick leave in September 2008 and was still off work in 2013, when he raised a grievance.
**Reached an agreement**
Mr Clifford complained that he had not received a pay rise and or any holiday pay for the five-year period.
In April 2013, when Mr Clifford was in his mid-30s, a “compromise agreement” was reached and his complaints were settled by putting him on the company’s disability plan.
Under the plan, a person who is unable to work is not dismissed but remains an employee and has “no obligation to work”, the hearing was told.
An employee on the plan has a right until recovery, retirement, or death if earlier, to be paid 75 per cent of agreed earnings.
In Mr Clifford’s case his agreed salary was £72,037, meaning from 2013 he would be paid £54,028 per year after 25 per cent was deducted.
The plan was fixed in place for more than 30 years until he reached retirement age at 65, meaning he will receive a total of more than £1.5 million.
He was also paid £8,685 to settle his holiday pay complaints in 2013 and agreed never to raise a further grievance about the same issues.
But in February 2022 Mr Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal with new disability discrimination claims mirroring his previous grievance.
He said he had been treated “unfavourably” with no salary increase since 2013 or holiday entitlement and compared himself to a non-disabled employee who would have been paid their full salary during holidays.
Mr Clifford said that with inflation now running at more than 10 per cent the “value of the payments would soon wither”.
He said: “The point of the plan was to give security to employees not able to work – that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen.”
**‘It is not discrimination’**
However, employment Judge Paul Housego dismissed his case.
Judge Housego said: “That active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not, is a difference, but is not, in my judgment, 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.
“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.”
Judge Housego continued: “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.”
A LinkedIn profile for Mr Clifford states he is from Guildford, Surrey, is medically retired and has a son.
Would be interesting to know what is his disability, but in any case, he should count himself lucky for not having to live on benefits.
[removed]
At least with that level of salary, hopefully this wasn’t covered by legal aid.
Ian Clifford will pocket more than £1.5 million.
However. Mr Clifford argued it was “not generous enough”.
I’ll get my tiny violin out lol
[deleted]
No mention at all of what he was medically retired over…
He is incredibly lucky.
When I became disabled I was sacked from my job of 17 years and given a months pay in lieu of notice.
As I looked for another job I could do I joined a very large IT company, and quickly realised they hire a large percentage of disabled people because the physical demands aren’t very high.
I don’t know the details of this man’s disability, but I do know firsthand a lot can be worked around, especially with working from home.
Who benefits from the jealous frenzy the Telegraph is whipping up amongst lower paid (than the article’s IT guy) wage slaves!
I’ve been out of work for four years because I have cancer and have the same 75% insurance this guy has. It’s making my last years less stressful. What a twat.
I bet he’s also on state benefits like PIP.
Reading the details and I don’t think he has grounds. He made a 30 year compromise deal (no details of this are shared) where he is not obligated to work and this will be paid until recovery or retirement.
Later he complained about holidays and they paid him again as a settlement on the grounds he didn’t raise any further complaints.
I don’t know the details and I guess ibm legal team have decided this is better for them, but the guy maybe needs to let it go. He agreed on the terms and has been paid again to go away.
If he was on 50k per year in 2008 he was likely very good at whatever his role was within IBM.
Looks like he took a disability scheme that was provided by his employer and wants an inflationary increase on top of that, something his employer agreed and signed off for without a percentage increase for inflation. It’s the first time I’ve saw this personally as I work in technology but certainly isn’t common at all among people. At his age you’re normally going into the realm of being a technology architect or moving into management.
The UK doesn’t have enough experienced IT, Infrastructure, cloud or software developers so those with a number of years experience are worth their weight in gold and while I might not know the extent of the guy’s disability he’s free to do so as he wishes.
I’m fascinated by what scheme he is being paid under. 30 years guaranteed with no obligation to work? I’ve not come across such a thing before.
What on earth qualifies you to get a salary from a company until you retire? Makes no mention in the article but if the company were liable for his injury that caused disability then I would say inflation increases should be applied to his salary as it’s their fault he can’t work.
Just become an IT project manager and do fuck all anyway.
Saw the headline and thought “go on mate, why the fuck not?” And then read the comments and everyone is angry at him for it? I can guarantee if it was you, you would do the exact same thing. Reeks of jealousy. Fair play to the man. I bet he’d rather be working and earning more but he can’t so may aswel get what he can.
This being from the rag that it is, is just something designed to make people angry and blame things on remainers and labour
Headline made me want to tell him to do one, but reading it, if the company agreed to this in the first place, I think pay rise strictly in line with inflation makes sense.
His income might be a pittance by the time he retires and will put him at a massive disadvantage when he reaches that age even though the company deemed his skills valuable enough for a 55k job in the early 2000s and agreed to pay him until he retired. I don’t see why he should suffer as a result because of inflation if it was agreed he cannot work, and his company agreed to this. It’s almost as if the company planned on it being a lessening debt over time because of inflation, so they suffer less from it over time, whereas this guy does suffer. I don’t see why he should
This seems like one of those situations where you just keep your head down and take the money…
That article lacks some quite crucial details for a full understanding of the story.
– what is the disability that doesn’t allow him to work?
– did it happen while he was performing his duties for Lotus or IBM or was it a known condition when he was hired?
– why is he not able to switch to a different position within the company that allows him to work remotely for example if his disability is a physical one, point one could answer this for me
– would like to hear his side of the story. He was not interviewed for this article
It’s an extreme case really, the headline is quite inflammatory and the article doesn’t provide much in the way of information to abate the anger most would feel when reading it.
These agreements are common in the tech/IT industry – I have one. If I was struck down unable to work tomorrow I’m covered at 75% of my annual salary at that time until I retire. Depending on what happened I may also get an extra year’s pay as a lump sum paid out on injury.
It’s a GOOD THING this is in place and a BAD THING that there are a LOT of other large companies – retail, logistics etc etc – that _could_ afford to put the policies in place for their employees but simply don’t. And THAT is how you end up with more of the population needing government assistance, because the same companies that have been tax-avoiding are grinding the population down to the bone on minimum wage and then passing the buck to the gov when they can’t work anymore.
This guy isn’t your enemy. The family on benefits with Sky TV and an all-inclusive booked to Tenerife isn’t your enemy. You’ve been conditioned to get angry over what? This article isn’t even about gov welfare yet most of the comments are – it’s working. GIVE YOUR HEADS A WOBBLE.
He accepted a settlement under a disability plan that was enumerated in strict salary terms in line with his employment contract. He had every opportunity to negotiate COLA or inflation-adjustment on a periodic basis upon onboarding.
It happens all the time.
IBM is fulfilling their end of the contract to the letter. Does inflationary pressure bite into that compensation? Yes. Does it suck? Absolutely. But it’s what he bargained for when he negotiated the terms of his hiring in 2000. A court is not going to read into that contract an implied term that he’s entitled to COLA adjustments, nor should it.
I know my dad took the piss and went off with ‘stress’ for 5 years, then took early retirement with a final salary pension. He was fully able to work the whole time.
I guess you’ve got to wonder what his background is. Maybe he was made disabled by working there, and this was a settlement to stop them from being sued. Maybe he had a life changing illness that is covered under some medical rules. Maybe he owns IP that IBM are using.
But it looks like he graduated in 2000, did 3 years at Lotus and then 5 years at IBM. Now he’s got 15 years of ‘not’ working for IBM. I guess it’s down to what they said he’d get in his contract. Seems pretty generous however you look at it. Most people would just have to live of DLA.
For those interested, here’s the tribunal ruling: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645bab28479612000cc2936b/Mr_I_Clifford_v_IBM_United_Kingdom_Limited_3302436.2022_OPH_Judgment.pdf
His claim was void from the beginning as he agreed to the terms imposed by the respondent upon accepting their offer in 2013.
He asked to go onto the scheme and they accepted, on the conditions stated – one of which was no guarantee of inflationary increases – which he agreed to. There were also several clauses it seems where he agreed to not bring further claims relating to or mirroring the prior settlement.
I don’t blame him for trying but it’s clear the ruling in this case was accurate and he had no case to bring. He waived his rights to further claims, and accepted (although probably didn’t expect) that there was no guarantee the company would increase his payments over time.
Now, whether or not this amounts to discrimination is up for debate and I’m not sure myself where I stand tbh.
For those saying he’d be entitled to PIP or other disability state benefits, I noted this caveat in the ruling:
> He would be paid 75% of OTE salary (less Employment Support Allowance or single person’s social security incapacity benefit) […].
I’m curious (for anyone legally trained or otherwise educated) what this means.
Does this apply to ESA and incapacity benefit exclusively? Or does it mean he’d be prohibited from claiming benefits such as PIP (or if not prohibited, would his payments decrease in line with any PIP/disability benefits).
There’s a few people arguing his entitlement to state disability benefits on top so I’m curious how this caveat affects things.
Well this totally isn’t meant to be an outrage piece coming from the Telegraph.
Has anyone considered he could have a progressive illness, maybe a poor prognosis (alright he’s still here 15 years later), but just wants to get as much as he can go make sure his wife and kids are comfortable if maybe he’s had some bad news? Can’t blame the guy for trying, he’s taking what he’s entitled to and tried for a bit more. Who doesn’t wanna fist the asshole of a big corp? Good on him and those of you bitching, put down your newspapers, switch off the TV and go sit somewhere quiet and consider how you wish you would be treated by a company if you ever ended up seriously disabled. 🙂 Maybe it’s some good karma he really deserved. You never know the full story.