Council Worker Ordered to Pay £20,000 After Faking Sick Leave for Second Job
A former council employee who claimed to be too unwell to work due to mental health issues was found to be working for British Gas and starring in their promotional videos, leading to her dismissal and a significant cost order.
A London council worker has been ordered to pay £20,000 to her former employer after she took a second job with British Gas while on sick leave and was discovered participating in the energy company's promotional videos. Elisha Neavin, 37, was employed by the London Borough of Southwark council for 15 years.
Neavin claimed to be unfit for work due to mental health issues including depression, anxiety, and complex PTSD, as well as dyslexia. An occupational health report in September 2023 stated she was "unfit for work at present" and that her symptoms might worsen due to therapy. Her contract with the council required her to notify management of any outside employment and stipulated that such employment must not conflict with the council's interests or undermine public confidence.
Despite her claims of being unable to work, Neavin began an apprenticeship with British Gas around December 11, 2023. She cited her therapy and observing Ramadan as reasons for being unable to attend council meetings or engage with management requests for welfare checks and return-to-work discussions. However, she was later seen in British Gas YouTube videos.
Following the discovery of her employment with British Gas, Neavin was dismissed in March 2025 for gross misconduct. She subsequently took the council to an employment tribunal, alleging discrimination due to her disabilities and claiming her medical suspension and subsequent capability hearing were discriminatory.
Her claims were ultimately dismissed. The London South Employment Tribunal ruled that the council's actions, including placing her on medical suspension and initiating a capability process, were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. These aims included safeguarding Neavin's health, facilitating a safe return to work, and managing operational uncertainty. The tribunal noted that Neavin repeatedly declined to engage with reasonable management requests during her suspension, creating significant barriers to reviewing her fitness for work.
The tribunal ordered Neavin to pay a contribution towards the council's legal costs, assessed at £20,000, which represented approximately half of the council's total costs in defending the litigation.