Woman sacked after falling pregnant while on maternity leave receives £28,000 payout

Get the free Morning Headlines newsletter from our reporters around the world.

Sign up for our free Morning Headlines email newsletter

A woman has been paid more than £28,000 after a court heard she was fired from her job because she returned from maternity leave pregnant.

Nikita Twitchen brought an unfair dismissal claim after she was sacked from her job as an administrative assistant at construction company First Grade Projects in Pontypridd in South Wales in April 2022.

The mother-of-two was about to return from maternity leave when First Grade Projects sacked her after learning she was expecting again.

Ms Twitchen attended a meeting with managing director Jeremy Morgan in February 2023 which started “positively” when he “stated that business was going well” and explained that they had recently been successful in securing a contract with the NHS, the decision said tribunal.

Mr Morgan said he was looking forward to her returning to work and they had agreed what hours she would work.

But as the meeting came to an end, Ms Twitchen explained she was pregnant again and the tribunal heard the revelation “came as a shock” to her boss.

After maternity leave ended at the end of March, no one from the company contacted her to confirm her return to work.

In April she asked Mr Morgan about her end-of-year holiday pay but he was “unable to respond substantively”, which was unlike him, according to the court.

Ms. Twitchen sent a follow-up message about a week later, and then another message about a week later.

Later that day, she received a call from Mr Morgan to say that she was being made redundant due to financial difficulties and that the firm was experiencing delays in receiving payments.

It was also suggested that her role had been terminated due to the installation of new software, “which meant that the plaintiff’s role would no longer exist and she would become unnecessary.”

Judge Havard noted that Mr Morgan made no mention of financial difficulties, layoffs or new software when they met back in February.

The judge criticized First Grade for failing to present “any evidence of alleged financial difficulties or new software” to the court, with the decision also highlighting the fact that Ms Twitchen was never given a written explanation of why she was released.