Ian Clifford, a British IT professional who has been on sick leave since 2008, has taken legal action against IBM. He claimed that the company did not grant any salary increase during the period in which he was away from work.
However, a labor judge dismissed the case, indicating that Clifford's allegations did not amount to disability discrimination. Furthermore, it was pointed out that, in fact, the official received favorable treatment.
see more
Alert: THIS poisonous plant landed a young man in the hospital
Google develops AI tool to help journalists in…
Clifford, who had been sidelined due to mental health issues, was diagnosed with stage four leukemia in 2013. That same year, he complained that he had not received a pay raise or vacation pay for five years. However, in April 2013, Clifford and IBM reached an agreement that guaranteed him the right to receive 75% of your salary until you retire or stop being part of the company's sickness and accident plan company.
See too: Brazil tests 4-day work week: Understand the changes and benefits
The Case of Ian Clifford
Ian Clifford, 50, went on sick leave in 2008 due to mental health issues. Later, in 2013, he was diagnosed with stage four leukemia.
During the period of absence, Clifford claimed that IBM did not raise his salary or pay him vacation during the five years he was away. In 2013, he reached an agreement with the company, in which he started to receive 75% of his salary until retirement or the end of the plan.
Claims of Disability Discrimination
In February 2022, Clifford decided to take IBM to court, claiming disability discrimination due to the lack of a pay increase since he joined the plan. He argued that the lack of salary adjustment resulted in a real decrease in his income due to inflation.
However, the labor judge handling the case rejected his allegations, stating that the payment plan was already substantial and that Clifford had received favorable treatment in relation to workers not disabled.
Pay rise and job equity
Despite the unfavorable decision, Clifford said it was not his intention to be greedy, but to ensure the financial security of his family, including his son who is away at university.
In this way, he expressed concern that, even though he was away for health reasons, his expenses, such as the mortgage, would not decrease. Clifford has already appealed the court's decision, seeking a 2.5% pay rise.
