Twitchen v. Genu Prima Ltd [2023]

Background

Ms. Nikita Twitchen commenced her role as an office administration assistant at Genu Prima Ltd, trading as First Grade Projects, on 13 October 2021. She began her maternity leave on 27 June 2022. During a return-to-work meeting on 17 February 2023, Ms. Twitchen informed Managing Director Jeremy Morgan of her second pregnancy. Following this disclosure, communication from the company ceased, and on 18 April 2023, she was informed of her redundancy due to alleged financial difficulties and the implementation of new software. Ms. Twitchen subsequently filed claims for automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.

Allegations:

Automatic unfair dismissal – Ms. Twitchen claimed her dismissal was primarily due to her pregnancy, constituting automatic unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination – She alleged that the treatment she received, including the dismissal, amounted to discrimination based on pregnancy and maternity, violating the Equality Act 2010.

Tribunal Findings

Employment Tribunal (ET) found in favour of Ms. Twitchen, determining that her dismissal was directly linked to her pregnancy announcement. The tribunal noted inconsistencies in the employer’s rationale, particularly the sudden shift from expressing business success to citing financial difficulties post-announcement.

The ET awarded Ms. Twitchen a total of £28,706.76, covering compensation for unfair dismissal, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, injury to feelings, and associated interest GOV.UK Assets

HR Key Takeaways – a long one!

Pregnancy related dismissals are automatically unfair unless there is a solid and legally sound justification. This isn’t an area where employers can cut corners.

Assumptions about capability, commitment, or availability don’t count as justification.

If a redundancy or dismissal affects a pregnant employee or someone on maternity leave, there must be clear, documented, and objective reasons. Anything else will not stand up to scrutiny and can result in a costly claim.

Communication is just as important as compliance. One of the biggest mistakes employers make is withdrawing from contact while an employee is on maternity leave. A sudden drop in communication, or worse, a last minute email about redundancy, raises red flags and will be seen as discriminatory. Consistency is key – staying engaged with employees on leave, keeping them informed of business changes, and ensuring they aren’t left in the dark helps prevent misunderstandings and legal risks.

Any changes to their role, return-to-work arrangements, or restructures should be discussed well in advance and properly documented. If an employer can’t clearly explain why a pregnant employee or new mother has been selected for redundancy, there’s already a problem. Inconsistencies, shifting explanations, or undocumented performance concerns will always look like a cover for discrimination.

HR should be reviewing these cases with a critical eye, ensuring every decision follows objective, measurable selection criteria rather than subjective judgments or unconscious bias.

If a business is making cuts and a pregnant employee is affected, there must be clear evidence that the decision would have been the same regardless of their maternity status.

Policies are only as good as the way they’re applied in reality. Too often, organisations have well written maternity policies but fail to enforce them consistently. Having the right framework in place is not enough HR needs to ensure that line managers actually understand and follow it.

Few more cases you can look up to for additional reading:

Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1994] – confirmed that dismissing an employee due to pregnancy is automatically unfair and constitutes sex discrimination.

London Borough of Ealing v. Blatchford [2022] – reinforced that selecting a pregnant employee for redundancy without clear, objective criteria is discriminatory.

Twitchen v. Genu Prima Ltd [2023] – highlighted the risks of vague justifications for redundancy during pregnancy, as seen in the employer’s shifting explanations for dismissal.

Hewston v. Ofsted [2024] – demonstrated that failure to maintain communication with an employee on maternity leave and suddenly terminating their employment can amount to discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Gomez v. Higher Education Provider [2024] – a recent tribunal case where a university was found to have failed to provide proper reintegration support for an employee returning from maternity leave, leading to a claim of indirect sex discrimination.