Despite 15-Year Absence Due To Illness, IT Employee Sues Company For Not Giving Him Pay Rise
Employees all across the world appreciate getting paid in full even if they are absent from work for extended periods of time due to illness.If they are only allowed a certain number of sick days per year, getting paid in full should never be an issue as long as they stay within the allowed limit.
But after missing work for years due to a physical condition, would it be appropriate for an employee to ask for a pay increase on top of a fixed salary? Something similar happened with a man who ended up suing the company. Here's his story.
IT employee sues IBM for pay rise disparity?
A senior IT employee who has been absent from work since 2008 due to illness reportedly sued his company for failing to give him a wage rise.?
Read that again, I say.The IT juggernaut IBM's Ian Clifford claimed he was the victim of handicap discrimination because his pay had not grown over the 15 years he had been "inactive."
The sedentary IT professional makes more than ?54,000 year, and thanks to an IBM health plan, his pay is even guaranteed until age 65.
According to reports, Clifford was enrolled in the company's disability plan so he wouldn't be fired. He continued to work for IBM as a result of this agreement, although he had "no obligation to work."?
The lawsuit was eventually dismissed?
Clifford, however, made the decision to sue his employer because he was dissatisfied with the kind offer and desired a pay boost.He sued his company for handicap discrimination in February 2022, but the tribunal dismissed his allegations since the court found that he had received "a very substantial benefit" and "favourable treatment."
The lawsuit was dismissed by Employment Judge Paul Housego on the grounds 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 argument is that because individuals without disabilities receive more favourable treatment than those who do, the lack of a pay rise constitutes disability discrimination.?
Because only those who are disabled can benefit from the scheme, this argument cannot be supported. The judge said, "The fact that the Plan is not even more generous does not constitute handicap discrimination.?
What do you think about this? Tell us in the comments.
For more trending stories, follow us on?Telegram.?
