Boss fired employee after she returned from maternity leave pregnant again

Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is an ongoing issue that continues to spark outrage. One such case involves Nikita Twitchen, an employee who was fired shortly after returning from maternity leave—pregnant again. The incident has drawn attention for its blatant violation of employment rights and discriminatory practices. In this article, we delve into the details of Twitchen’s experience, the tribunal’s findings, and the implications of this case for workplace equality.

The Story of Nikita Twitchen: From Maternity Leave to Termination

Nikita Twitchen, an office administration assistant at First Grade Projects in Pontypridd, Wales, began working with the company in October 2021. Her initial relationship with her employer, Jeremy Morgan, the managing director, was described as positive and supportive. However, this changed dramatically after she became pregnant and went on maternity leave in June 2022.

A Positive Start Turns Sour

Twitchen planned to return to work following her maternity leave, which ended on March 26, 2023. During her return-to-work meeting with Morgan on February 17, 2023, things initially seemed promising. Morgan expressed enthusiasm about her return, and they agreed on a suitable work schedule.

But everything shifted when Twitchen disclosed that she was eight weeks pregnant. According to Twitchen, Morgan’s demeanor changed instantly, contradicting his claim that he congratulated her. The atmosphere grew tense, setting the stage for what would soon become a devastating turn of events.

The Unexpected Dismissal: Redundancy or Discrimination?

Despite having agreed to her return date of April 3, 2023, Twitchen received no confirmation from First Grade Projects regarding her return. Growing concerned, she reached out to Morgan, who advised her to “wait until you have your routine in place.”

The Dismissal Call: April 18, 2023

On April 18, Morgan called Twitchen to inform her that she was being made redundant. He cited two main reasons:

1. Financial Difficulties: Morgan claimed that the company was struggling due to delayed payments, forcing them to cut costs.
2. Role Obsolescence: He mentioned that new software had made her role redundant, further justifying the dismissal.

However, these explanations didn’t sit right with Twitchen. The sudden decision, the lack of written communication, and the timing of her pregnancy disclosure made her suspect discriminatory motives.

Tribunal Findings: The Truth Behind the Termination

Twitchen decided to take her case to an employment tribunal, believing she had been wrongfully dismissed due to her pregnancy. The tribunal thoroughly reviewed the case, uncovering inconsistencies in First Grade Projects’ defense.

Key Inconsistencies Uncovered

• No Mention of Financial Struggles: During the return-to-work meeting in February, Morgan had not indicated any financial issues. In fact, he had assured Twitchen that the company was doing well.
• Lack of Evidence: First Grade Projects failed to provide documentation supporting claims of financial hardship or redundancies.
• Rebranding and Expansion: Following Twitchen’s dismissal, the company underwent rebranding, hired new staff, and invested in new vehicles—actions that contradicted Morgan’s claims of financial strain.

The tribunal’s findings were clear: Morgan’s change in behavior after learning of Twitchen’s pregnancy indicated discrimination. The judge noted Morgan’s slow response to Twitchen’s messages and the absence of a written explanation as further evidence of discriminatory intent.

The Impact of Discriminatory Dismissal

The judge ruled that Twitchen’s termination was both unfair and discriminatory, acknowledging the emotional distress and financial instability caused by the incident.

Nikita’s Resilience and Determination

Following her dismissal, Twitchen displayed remarkable resilience. Despite being heavily pregnant, she secured temporary jobs at a launderette and a caravan park between June and October 2023. She continued working until she was 39 weeks pregnant, demonstrating her determination to provide for her family amidst challenging circumstances.

The tribunal recognized her efforts, commending her for enduring physically demanding work in extremely hot conditions. The judge awarded her £28,706 in compensation, a decision aimed at addressing the financial hardship and emotional distress she endured as a result of the discriminatory dismissal.

The Broader Implications of the Case

Twitchen’s case is not an isolated incident; it is a glaring example of pregnancy discrimination that continues to plague workplaces across the globe. Here are the broader implications of this case:

1. Legal Protections Against Pregnancy Discrimination

The case reinforces the importance of legal protections for pregnant employees. Under the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they are pregnant or on maternity leave. Despite these protections, many employers still engage in discriminatory practices, often citing vague reasons like “redundancy” or “role changes.”

2. The Need for Transparent Communication

Employers must maintain transparent communication, especially during sensitive times such as maternity leave and return-to-work transitions. In Twitchen’s case, the lack of clear communication and documentation raised red flags, contributing to the tribunal’s conclusion that her dismissal was unjust.

3. The Role of Employment Tribunals in Upholding Rights

Employment tribunals play a crucial role in upholding workers’ rights and ensuring justice for those who face discrimination. Twitchen’s victory serves as a reminder that employees have recourse to challenge unfair treatment, provided they have the courage and support to pursue legal action.

4. Addressing the Stigma Around Pregnant Employees

Pregnancy discrimination often stems from outdated perceptions that pregnant women are less capable or committed to their work. Employers must move away from these biases and recognize that pregnancy does not diminish a woman’s professional value. Supporting pregnant employees not only aligns with legal requirements but also fosters a more inclusive and supportive work environment.

First Grade Projects’ Response: Damage Control or Denial?

After the tribunal’s ruling, First Grade Projects issued a statement expressing disappointment with the outcome. The company mentioned that it was actively reviewing the case and considering its options, but it refrained from providing further comments.

This response suggests that the company is more focused on damage control than on addressing the core issues of discrimination that led to Twitchen’s dismissal. For meaningful change to occur, companies must acknowledge and address discriminatory practices rather than merely seeking to protect their reputations.

Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Workplace Equality

The case of Nikita Twitchen highlights the ongoing challenges faced by pregnant employees in the workplace. Her experience is a stark reminder of the discrimination that persists, despite legal protections designed to prevent it. By standing up for her rights, Twitchen not only secured justice for herself but also sent a powerful message about the importance of workplace equality.

Her victory serves as both a cautionary tale for employers and an inspiration for employees to assert their rights. As society moves toward greater inclusivity, it’s crucial to ensure that all workers—regardless of pregnancy or parental status—are treated with fairness, respect, and dignity.