Imagine being on sick leave from your job. Now, imagine that leave lasts for 15 years. During that time, your company agrees to pay you three-fourths of your salary, every single year, until you retire. For most, this would be an unexpected safety net.
But for one IT employee, it wasn’t enough. He went to court because he hadn’t received a pay raise during those 15 years away.
This is the unusual true story of Ian Clifford and the tech giant IBM.
Ian Clifford, a software employee in the UK, went on sick leave from IBM in September 2008 due to mental health reasons. His absence continued, and he was later diagnosed with a serious illness.
By 2013, after being off work for five full years, Clifford did something surprising. He filed a formal complaint against IBM. His main issue? In all those years of not working, his salary had remained frozen. He had not been given a single increment or pay rise.
Later in 2013, IBM and Clifford reached a settlement. He was placed on the company’s Sickness and Accident Plan. This was a major deal. The plan guaranteed he would receive 75% of his last drawn salary every year until he turned 65.
Based on his salary then, this meant a steady yearly payment of over £54,000 (roughly Rs 54 lakh at the time). Newspapers calculated that from 2008 until his retirement, he could receive over £1.5 million (multiple crores of rupees) without working another day. He was even paid extra to settle holiday pay claims. In return, he agreed to close the matter.
Most would see this as a secure, lifelong arrangement. But nearly ten years later, in 2022, Clifford sued IBM again. He took them to an employment tribunal, this time claiming disability discrimination.
His argument? By not increasing his fixed yearly payments for inflation since 2013, IBM was treating him unfairly because of his disability. He said his income’s value was shrinking as prices rose.
In 2023, the tribunal judge dismissed his case. The court’s reasoning was straightforward.
The judge stated that the lifelong payment plan itself was a “very substantial benefit”—a form of “favourable treatment” that only a disabled employee in his situation could get. Other, non-disabled employees did not have access to such a plan.
A key line from the ruling explains it simply: You cannot claim discrimination for not getting extra benefits on top of a special benefit created just for you.
The court saw the guaranteed annual payment not as a frozen salary, but as a protected financial support system, which was in itself a privilege.
For any working professional, especially in India’s competitive IT sector where appraisals are keenly awaited, this story seems almost unbelievable. It shows how the lines between a company’s support, an employee’s rights, and a sense of fairness can sometimes lead to the most unexpected courtroom battles.