'I was fired by ad agency with Mad Men culture after I had disabled son'

 
'Mad Men culture': Actor Jon Hamm as Don Draper in the his series
Paul Cheston6 June 2014

A mother of a disabled child who was sacked after returning from maternity leave accused bosses at a top advertising firm of having a ‘Mad Men’ culture of sexual discrimination.

Mrs A, a single mother in her late 30s who had worked on the high profile Dove ‘real women’ campaign , claimed bosses at the advertising agency got rid of her because of her disabled son.

She was originally employed by Ogilvy, the inspiration for the hit American period drama Mad Men, rising to a senior £160,000 a year post before the company was taken over by Hogarth World Wide Ltd, part of the advertising giant WWP Plc.

However Mrs A claimed she lost her job when she returned from maternity leave in November 2012.

She was immediately put on gardening leave before being made redundant in June 2013.

She is claiming overt sexual discrimination at the East London Employment Tribunal.

However former bosses argued her position was no longer necessary after her team, which concentrated on producing advertising campaigns, was taken over by Hogarth Worldwide Limited.

Speaking outside the tribunal Mrs A, who asked for and was granted a restricted reporting order on the grounds that the case might impact on her disabled son, said there was a “culture of discrimination” at the company.

She said: “I am very good at my work and greatly enjoyed it. No one ever came forward to say I wasn’t good at my job.

“I am the primary carer for my son, who is often critically ill in hospital and suffers epilepsy.

“I was told when I came back from maternity leave there was not a job for me. I felt very vulnerable because of my disabled child and this happened.

“I would say there was a Mad Men culture of sexual discrimination going on.

“I worked for the Dove campaign which was all about empowering women - it is ironic that behind the scenes things were very different.”

Representing Mrs A, Jonathan Davies told the East London tribunal hearing: “This is an overt case of discrimination. The claimant’s submission is that Hogarth instructed those running the joint venture to dismiss the claimant, because the claimant had a disabled son.

“The imputation is discrimination because of her sex.”

However Andrew Short for the respondents argued Mrs A was made fully aware of the fact her role no longer existed and her disabled son was nothing to do with her losing her job.

He said: “After the transfer Hogarth decided to restructure the joint venture and as a result, the claimant’s job disappeared and no longer now exists.

“The claimant argues her role still exists and is being carried out by others. That is a misunderstanding of the redundancy laws.

“The claimant was being paid 50 per cent more than the going rate for employees of equivalent seniority earning £90,000. “

He added: “Hogarth did not know she had a son with a disability, only her salary and the fact she was on maternity leave.”

The tribunal reserved its decision.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in