A mother has won more than £28,700 ($37,000) in compensation after her boss fired her for becoming pregnant while already on maternity leave.

Nikita Twitchen was preparing to return to her administrative job at British construction services company First Grade Projects after having a baby when she discovered she was pregnant again.

The happy news turned sour when she revealed the impending bundle of joy to her boss, CEO Jeremy Morgan, during a meeting about her return-to-work plan.

After it became clear the 27-year-old would be taking another 36-week maternity leave, she was fired and forced to take cleaning jobs while pregnant to support her family. Now, an employment tribunal has ruled that she was unfairly dismissed.

First grade projects and a Twitchen representative did not respond FortuneRequest for comments.

The second pregnancy “was a shock” for the boss

Twitchen began working for First Grade Projects, sponsor of Swansea City football club, on October 13, 2021. As an office administration assistant, he told Cardiff court, his role included answering the phone, handling payments, fundraising and present documents. and more.

Additionally, she described her working relationship with Morgan as “very good” and said he was “very responsive” when she needed to talk to him.

However, shortly after accepting the new job, Twitchen became pregnant and went on maternity leave about eight months after starting, from June 27, 2022 to March 2023.

Just before her return, Twitchen met with Morgan on February 17, 2023 to discuss her transition back to work after having a baby.

The court heard how the return to work meeting “started positively”, with Morgan saying business was going well and the company had secured an NHS contract, while adding he was looking forward to Twitchen returning.

However, towards the end of the meeting, Twitchen revealed that she was pregnant again, telling the court that this “came a shock” to her boss.

“While (Morgan) suggested in his reasons for response that he congratulated the plaintiff, she disputed this in her oral testimony,” the court documents read. Twitchen also denied offering to resign if her second pregnancy “presented a problem” for the company. At the time she was approximately eight weeks pregnant.

“Indeed, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that she needed the job and the security that comes with it. “She was responsible for her children and needed financial stability.”

The following month, when her maternity leave officially ended, Twitchen said no one from first grade got in touch to discuss her return to work.

So he contacted his employer on March 27 and told him he wanted to resume his position on April 3, 2023, to which Morgan responded by saying it was “better to leave it until he had his routine established.”

It wasn’t until April, Twitchen told the court, that she realized her boss was acting “out of character” after she asked if she could take annual leave during her first month back.

He subsequently ignored her messages until April 18, when he called her to tell her that she was being laid off due to financial difficulties and that certain “savings” had to be made.

She later claimed that new software was being installed, which “meant that the plaintiff’s role would no longer exist and she would be dismissed.”

The real reason for her dismissal: being pregnant, says judge

Labor judge Robin Havard ruled that Twitchen was fired because she was pregnant.

Judge Havard criticized First Grade’s failure to “present any evidence of the alleged financial difficulties or the new software” during the court case, as well as “any coherent evidence-based alternative explanation… even though they had ample opportunity to provide one.”

He also noted that the company has changed names, hired and invested in new vehicles since Twitchen’s firing.

“While the advertised positions were not positions for which the Plaintiff would be suitable, they cast doubt on the Defendants’ claim that the company was in financial difficulties,” the court concluded.

The judge also highlighted Morgan’s “change in attitude” and “speed of response” to messages after learning of the pregnancy.

He concluded that Twitchen’s dismissal was unfair and must have caused her “real anxiety and distress over a period of time, as she was dismissed when she was pregnant and lost her sense of financial security with all the family responsibilities she had.”

“There were sufficient facts to infer that defendants’ unfavorable treatment of plaintiff was due to her pregnancy and that defendants’ conduct was discriminatory,” the court ruled.

This story originally appeared on fortune.com