An administrative assistant who was dismissed from her job after returning from maternity leave pregnant has been awarded £28,706.76 by a tribunal.
Nikita Twitchen was made redundant by Wales-based building firm First Grade Projects in April 2023, a couple of months after meeting her boss to discuss her return to the office.
She had started working for the business in October 2021 and took maternity leave from June 2022.
In February 2023, Ms Twitchen met with the managing director Jeremy Morgan to talk about returning to work in a meeting which “started positively” with Mr Morgan “saying the business was doing well” and that he looked forward to her return.
Pregnancy tribunal cases
‘Emotional’ pregnant Mitie manager wins £350k in compensation boost
Pregnant HR exec sent laughing emojis after redundancy wins £21k
Pregnant woman stereotyped as emotional wins constructive dismissal claim
The tribunal heard that during the meeting, the basis on which Ms Twitchen was to return, in terms of hours, was also talked about and agreed. However, near the end of the discussion she told her boss she was pregnant again.
When her maternity leave was due to end in March 2023, Ms Twitchen’s employer failed to contact her regarding her return to work and after several messages she was told that, “due to financial difficulties” faced by the business and certain delays in payments, savings had to be made and her role was being made redundant. It was also suggested that the redundancy was the result of the installation of new software.
However, no mention of either financial hardship or redundancies had been made at the time of February’s meeting or subsequently. The business had also failed to raise the issue of the new software which would make her job redundant.
She took her employer to a tribunal claiming unfair dismissal and discrimination due to pregnancy, as well as complaining that no written statement of dismissal had been provided.
The ruling stated: “On the balance of probabilities, it was reasonable to infer that the principal reason why the claimant was dismissed was because she was pregnant. Even though the response had been dismissed, the tribunal nevertheless found that no evidence had been forthcoming from the respondent to suggest that the reason was redundancy.”
The judge said: “The tribunal was struck by the fact that she did not seek to exaggerate or embellish the effect on her of the respondents’ conduct. However, the tribunal was satisfied that this must have caused real anxiety and distress over a period of time, having been dismissed when pregnant and losing her sense of financial security with all the family responsibilities that she had.”
First Grade was also criticised for not providing any evidence of the alleged financial difficulties or of the new software, as well as for not offering a written explanation of her dismissal.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR business partner opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR business partner jobs
