A woman from South Wales has been awarded £28,706.76 by anemployment tribunal after she was dismissed for getting pregnant while on maternity leave.
Nikita Twitchen, an administration assistant at building company First Grade Projects in Pontypridd, was laid off after she returned from maternity leave pregnant.
Employment Judge Havard found that “it was reasonable to infer that the principal reason why the Claimant was dismissed was because she was pregnant”. The tribunal ruled that the company had failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims that the dismissal was due to redundancy.
Maternity dismissals: new government proposals
Low maternity pay forcing new mothers back to work after just 12 weeks or less, new research finds
How employers can stay ahead of the Paternity Leave Act
“The tribunal took account of the change of attitude of [managing director Jeremy Morgan] on being told by the claimant on 17 March 2023 of her pregnancy, having said at an earlier stage in the meeting that the business was doing well, and that he was looking forward to the claimant's return,” the judge said.
Of the total sum awarded to Twitchen, £15,000 was compensation for injury to feelings. The tribunal noted in its ruling: “Having listened carefully to the claimant give evidence, 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.”
Background
Twitchen began her role as office administration assistant at First Grade Projects on 13 October 2021, managing office tasks such as handling payments, filing and organising meetings. Shortly after commencing her employment she became pregnant and commenced a period of maternity leave on 27 June 2022. On 17 February 2023, she attended a return to work meeting with managing director Jeremy Morgan.
The meeting started positively with Morgan saying the business was doing well, confirming that the company had recently secured a contract with the NHS. He said he looked forward to Twitchen’s return, and the basis on which she was to return, in terms of hours, was also discussed and agreed.
However, towards the end of the meeting, Twitchen disclosed that she was pregnant again. This was said in front of the operations manager and contract manager. At the time, she was approximately eight weeks pregnant, and the baby was born on 25 October 2023. “This news came as a shock to [Morgan],” the tribunal noted. “Whilst it was suggested by [Morgan] in the Grounds of Response that he congratulated the claimant, this was disputed by the claimant in her oral evidence. She also denied that she offered to finish with the [company] if this presented a problem. Indeed, the tribunal accepted the evidence of the claimant who stated that she needed the job and the security that came with it. She was responsible for her children and needed the financial stability.”
Although Twitchen’s maternity leave ended on 26 March 2023, she did not receive confirmation from the company regarding her return. After reaching out on 27 March 2023, stating that she wished to return to work on 3 April 2023, Morgan responded, saying it was “best to leave it until you have your routine in place”, to which Twitchen agreed, assuming her position was secure.
Subsequent communication difficulties ensued. On 4 April 2023, Twitchen raised the issue of holiday entitlement in her first month back as her son was due to start school. Morgan failed to respond promptly, which “was out of character”, requiring Twitchen to send multiple follow-up messages.
On 18 April 2023, Morgan informed Twitchen that, due to financial difficulties within the company and certain payment, “savings had to be made”. He stated her employment would be terminated because her role was becoming redundant, supposedly due to new software being installed, which “meant that the claimant’s role would no longer exist with her becoming redundant”, the tribunal heard. Morgan also mentioned that a workshop manager had been made redundant earlier in 2023, although Twitchen was unaware of this, but he asserted that these financial challenges had persisted.
Following her dismissal, Twitchen went online to find out whether the respondents were entitled to treat her in the way that they did, as she was convinced that the reason for her dismissal was due to her pregnancy and that her role was not redundant. Throughout this process, she reached out to her solicitors and worked with them, resulting in her claim form being submitted on 25 July 2023. At no point did she receive a written explanation from the respondents detailing the reasons for her dismissal.
Judge’s comments
In its ruling, the tribunal highlighted that one of the respondent’s shortcomings during these proceedings was the absence of any evidence to support the claimed financial difficulties or the new software, which Twitchen was informed contributed to her job being made redundant.
Furthermore, since her dismissal, the company had “rebranded itself, recruited personnel and invested in vehicles”.
“Whilst the roles advertised were not roles to which the claimant would be suited, it cast doubt on the respondents' assertion that the company was in financial difficulty,” the court said. “It also conflicted with what was said by [Morgan] at the meeting on 17 March 2023 when he said the business was doing well.”
Ultimately, employment judge Havard ruled that “the principal reason why the claimant was dismissed was because she was pregnant” and that “no evidence had been forthcoming from the respondent to suggest that the reason was redundancy.”
In making their decision, the tribunal said they “took account of the complete lack of any coherent evidence-based alternative explanation from the respondents, despite them having ample opportunity to provide one.”
Furthermore, the judge held that the conduct at the meeting on 17 March 2023, the failure to respond to messages on 27 March 2023 and 11 April 2023, and not allowing her to return to work on 3 April 2023 all amounted to unfavourable treatment. “There were sufficient facts to infer that the respondents' unfavourable treatment of the claimant was because of the pregnancy and that the respondents' conduct was discriminatory,” the tribunal ruled.
Lawyer’s comment
Claire Brook, employment law partner at Aaron & Partners, said: “The judgement provides a reminder of the protection afforded to pregnant employees and those within the protected period. In this case, the Tribunal found that in the absence of any documentary evidence to the contrary, the respondents had acted unlawfully and that their conduct was discriminatory.”
She continued that dismissal, including selection for redundancy, will be treated as automatically unfair if the principal reason is of a prescribed kind or takes place in prescribed circumstances. “Those circumstances include reasons relating to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity,” she said. “There is no reduced requirement or exemption applicable to small employers. In this case the Company had 14 employees at the relevant time.”
Brook also noted that the case demonstrates how necessary it is that employers “engage in the tribunal process and attend hearings so they can put a meaningful defence forward”, as here “the remedies were likely higher as the Respondent did not submit appropriate evidence, breached orders, failed to attend or produce a counter-schedule to the Claimant’s Schedule of Loss.”
For further information on maternity and parental rights, visit the CIPD’s dedicated topic page