Ian Clifford, an IT guy for IBM, has been out sick since 2008 and is still collecting a paycheck.
Apparently back in the day, IBM's British arm offered the mother-load of job perks.
Under Clifford's health plan, if an employee becomes disabled for any reason while working for the company, the employee cannot be dismissed but cannot be forced to work either. Instead they will continue to receive their paycheck until recovery, retirement, or death if earlier, to be paid at 75% of agreed earnings
Clifford was hired at £72,037 ($90,221) per year, so since becoming disabled, he's been making £54028 ($67,667) per year. Clifford will receive this salary for 30 years for a grand total of £1.5 million ($1.88 million): not a bad haul for doing nothing.
However, Clifford could not help but notice that his free salary was not going as far these days thanks to inflation, so he sued IBM for not giving him a raise.
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.'
The basis of the claim was disability discrimination.
All the non-disabled people who had showed up at their job over the last 15 years had gotten raises, after all.
Judge Paul Housego dismissed the case as ridiculous and said,
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.
Oh yikes! With commons-sense logic like that, the Left is going to crucify this judge.
I'm sure they'll see this move as lacking compassion, but it's important to remember that if Clifford is disabled in the UK, he's also getting government benefits, many of which are not means tested and include cost of living increases.
So, he'll be fine. This whole lawsuit is actually as ridiculous as the judge makes it sound.