“Pale, stale, male” advertising executives claim that they are victims of discrimination

Think of the TV series Mad Men and you will conjure up the image of high-flying testosterone filled salesmen living up to almost every imaginable stereotype of a world that was and to some extent still is. However, the world is definitely changing, no more so than in 2018, with the burgeoning #MeToo movement, and a sense that radical action is needed to achieve real equality in the workplace. However, and stick with me on this one, is there a tipping point beyond which targeting and redress can be taken too far?

J Walter Thompson (now generally referred to as JWT) is an enormous global advertising agency and widely thought to be the inspiration for Mad Men. News has emerged over the last few weeks of something of a putsch against what might be regarded, to coin a phrase, as its pale, stale, male employees.

As reported in The Times (behind the paywall), the groundwork for what was coming could be detected when JWT’s creative director, Jo Wallace (introducing herself as a gay woman), spoke at a diversity conference in May about her determination to “obliterate” its reputation as and agency full of white, privileged, straight, British men. She pledged to address a “horrible” median gender pay gap of 44.7%, saying that the disparity in pay put: 

…a rocket up the arse of all the diversity plans at JWT

Jo Wallace, creative director, JWT

Unsurprisingly, some of those who appeared to be in Ms Wallace’s firing line were concerned about their futures at JWT in light of what had been said. The approached the agency’s HR department and, according to a report in Campaign magazine, were sacked days later. Having taken legal advice, they are now reported to be bringing discrimination claims based on gender, race, nationality and sexuality. How is that possible, you might ask?

"something more" required to establish discrimination

In the 2007 case Madarassy v Nomura International the Court of Appeal remarked that: "The bare facts of a difference in status and a difference in treatment only indicate a possibility of discrimination. They are not, without more, sufficient material from which a tribunal ‘could conclude’ that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent had…

discrimination the ground of marital status and a judicial mention for Downton Abbey

The Equality Act 2010, like its predecessors, protects those with the protected characteristic of marriage from discrimination on the ground of that characteristic. Does this concept, originally introduced to deal with the outmoded practice of dismissing women as soon as they married, which still continued into the 1960s, have any current relevance in the 21st…

just how far can the concept of philosophical beliefs extend?

As originally drafted, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 prohibited discrimination on grounds of religion or "similar" philosophical beliefs. Then the Equality Act 2006 removed the requirement for such similarity, and extended the protection to any philosophical belief: the Equality Act 2010 s.10 continues with that wide definition. Removal of just one word…

Harrods: female employees must wear “full makeup” and even visitors must observe the “dress code”

In 2011 the extraordinary and surely outdated dress codes operated by Harrods department store have been highlighted by a complaint brought by former employee Melanie Stark. As reported in The Guardian Ms Stark, who worked not in the makeup department but in the HMV franchise, was told that she must wear “full makeup” including lipliner,…

sex discrimination – speculation can be taken into account

Even leading law firms can get it wrong. What do employers do if they have to make redundancies and one of the candidates has been absent on maternity leave? That gave rise to a dilemma for national solicitors’ firm Eversheds. They have lost a legal battle but it is possible that they will win the…