Council Worker Ordered to Pay £20,000 After Working for British Gas While Claiming to Be Unfit for Work

A former Southwark Council employee has been ordered to pay £20,000 towards the local authority’s legal costs after losing a disability discrimination case linked to her dismissal for gross misconduct.

Elisha Neavin, 37, was dismissed in March 2025 after an investigation found that she had taken up an apprenticeship with British Gas while on medical suspension from her council role.

Her employment with the energy company came to light after she appeared in one of its promotional videos posted on YouTube.

Neavin subsequently brought a claim against the council, arguing that its decision to place her on medical suspension and later dismiss her amounted to discrimination because of her disabilities.

However, her claims were rejected by an employment tribunal in London South.

The tribunal subsequently ordered her to contribute £20,000 towards the council’s legal expenses, representing approximately half of the total costs incurred in defending the litigation.

Fifteen Years of Service at Southwark Council

Neavin began working for Southwark Council in 2010 as a Practice Coordinator in its Children’s Services department.

During her employment, she experienced several health difficulties, including depression, anxiety and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She also had dyslexia, which could affect her work.

Her employment contract required staff to notify their managers of any additional employment.

It also stated that outside work, whether paid or unpaid, must not conflict with the council’s interests or undermine public confidence in its operations.

The policy stated that employees were required to inform their managers whenever they took up employment with another organisation.

Medical Assessment Found Her Unfit for Work

In September 2023, Neavin underwent an occupational health assessment to evaluate her condition and fitness to continue working.

The resulting report concluded that she was unfit for work at the time.

It cited the severity of her anxiety and depression and noted that she was beginning Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy.

The report also warned that her symptoms could worsen as she progressed through treatment.

Based on the medical advice, managers concluded that allowing her to continue working could be reckless or potentially negligent.

Although Neavin expressed a desire to remain at work, she was signed off on medical grounds.

However, she began working for British Gas around December 11, 2023, while still absent from her council position.

Therapy and Ramadan Cited in Dispute Over Meetings

As the council attempted to arrange meetings to discuss Neavin’s welfare and a possible return to work, she objected to repeated requests for her attendance.

In one response, she asked managers to allow her to engage in therapy without what she described as constant harassment and repeated messages.

She also raised concerns about being asked to attend a meeting during prayer time and the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, arguing that her religious observance and ongoing treatment had not been adequately considered.

Meanwhile, council managers continued trying to assess her circumstances and determine when she might be able to resume her duties.

Return-to-Work Delays Preceded Discovery of British Gas Role

In September 2024, following a capability hearing, the council decided to lift Neavin’s medical suspension.

She continued to delay her return, citing panic attacks and anxiety, and said she would not be able to resume work until December 2024.

It was around this period that the council discovered she had been working for British Gas while remaining absent from her council job.

Investigators found YouTube promotional videos published by the energy company in which Neavin appeared and referred to having worked for a local council.

The discovery prompted an investigation into her conduct and whether she had breached the terms of her employment.

Council Dismisses Neavin for Gross Misconduct

Following the investigation, Southwark Council dismissed Neavin for gross misconduct in March 2025.

She challenged the decision through an employment tribunal, alleging that both her medical suspension and dismissal were discriminatory because of her disabilities.

Her unfair dismissal claim was rejected at a preliminary hearing.

Other claims, including allegations concerning the medical suspension and the subsequent capability process, were dismissed at a final hearing at the London South Employment Tribunal.

Judge Explains Why the Discrimination Claims Failed

Employment Judge Francesca Yardley ruled that the council’s decision to place Neavin on medical suspension was justified and proportionate.

The judge said the authority had legitimate reasons for its actions, including protecting Neavin’s health, facilitating a safe and supported return to work, and addressing the operational uncertainty created by her prolonged absence.

The tribunal also found that Neavin had repeatedly declined reasonable requests from management throughout her medical suspension.

These included weekly welfare calls, attendance at review meetings and permission for an updated occupational health assessment.

According to the ruling, communication between Neavin and the council was limited to occasional text messages, while several letters sent by recorded delivery were returned unopened.

The judge concluded that these circumstances had made it difficult for the council to review Neavin’s fitness for work or determine what adjustments might be necessary to support her return.

The tribunal also found that beginning a capability process in April 2024 was a proportionate step after repeated attempts to engage with her had failed.

Tribunal Sets £20,000 Contribution Towards Legal Costs

Following the dismissal of her claims, the tribunal ordered Neavin to pay £20,000 towards Southwark Council’s legal costs.

The ruling stated that the amount had been assessed summarily and represented approximately half of the council’s total expenses in defending the litigation.