Timeline for Potential employer flew me out for interview, cancels return flight
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2019 at 22:13 | comment | added | Charlie Mike No Shoot | I had one similar case where I was flown in and kept in a room with no food and barely anything to drink for 6 hours, going through 1 tech test and 5 rounds of interviews, the last one with the head manager of the department looking to hire me. Because I was jet lagged (coast to coast), tired and with low sugar level, I had issues answering her questions, which were the same I had been asked 4 times before during the day. I was then kicked out very rudely, and I mean very. They never answered my requests for a feedback or even a formal nay. They did pay my flight and expenses. | |
| Jan 22, 2019 at 6:48 | comment | added | JAD | @Nelson I'm not sure why you think I thought it was a coincidence. At the time there was no mention of the specific question, so there was a point in mentioning it, thank you very much. | |
| Jan 22, 2019 at 5:44 | history | edited | Nelson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 133 characters in body
|
| Jan 22, 2019 at 5:41 | comment | added | Nelson | @JAD That's not a coincidence. Much earlier in the initial comments the legal side of things were brought up and another member cross-posted to the law SE. It is explicitly mentioned in the question by a later edit. You don't really need to mention it... | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:50 | comment | added | Anyon | @mtraceur I agree that someone could make that argument, and that making it stick is the tricky part. It'd probably work in some cases - say if you're flown out to an oil rig or remote island - but that was evidently not the case here, as the Greyhound bus was an option. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:46 | comment | added | Anyon | @BenVoigt Indeed, and those losses may also include loss of income in this case. However, my comment was not an attempt at assessing the full situation, just a response to one of Mawg's comments above. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 7:49 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @anyon: They aren't restricting OP's personal movement (which would be criminal), but he did make a good faith reliance on the plane ticket offered to him in exchange for coming to the interview, and their cancellation of that ticket is a tort and they can be held responsible for all financial losses that directly result from their action, including not only alternative transportation but also lodging and meals while waiting for that transportation. Reimbursement for pain and suffering is a bit more of a stretch but probably worth trying for. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 4:44 | comment | added | Kaz | The exact truth can't get you sued? News to me. | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 23:51 | comment | added | mtraceur | @Anyon (cont) that said, even if the above hypothetical development progressed, I don't see that OP could prove that he was really fully helplessly stranded in such a way (because he did have other options, arguably less accessible, but not inaccessible), or that the prospective employer knew he would be thus trapped (because unless he told them about his rather strained financial situation, and unless they didn't have good reasons to suspect his claim, I'm not sure you could say the result was intentional on their part). | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 23:46 | comment | added | mtraceur | @Anyon I agree with you, though it seems that there is growing acceptance of the reasoning that if the only accessible personal movement requires financial means you do not have, then you don't actually have freedom of movement, and if someone knowingly causes that condition, then you don't have that freedom of movement because of that someone. I wouldn't expect this argument to win in court any time soon, but I find myself thinking that we'll be seeing things turning that way in some jurisdictions within a couple of decades. | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 18:54 | comment | added | Anyon | @Mawg I'm also no lawyer, but I don't see any case for kidnapping or false imprisonment here at all. The company simply isn't restricting OP's personal movement - they're just not paying for it. | |
| S Jan 17, 2019 at 17:01 | history | suggested | T.J.L. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Expanded abbreviation; this is a Q&A site, not a text message.
|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 16:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 17, 2019 at 17:01 | |||||
| Jan 17, 2019 at 12:11 | comment | added | stannius | Isn't opinion exempt from libel/slander laws? What gets you in trouble is incorrect statements of fact. | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 11:58 | comment | added | Fattie | I am very sorry to say, that, no attorney in the US will take this case. Unless it's a very, very big brand-name company where an attorney smells blood on a whacky situation. | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 11:49 | history | edited | Mawg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 17, 2019 at 9:07 | comment | added | Mawg | I just thought that that could be classified as pain & suffering, or whatever it is the TV lawyers use to get millions. The company, albeit indirectly, humiliated the OP (but I also suggest that a lawyer could make a case for kidnap or false imprisonment :-) | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 9:05 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | "(especially give that "had to eat scraps from other customers")" I don't think that particular part changes anything regarding winning or losing a lawsuit. Either op is entitled to compensation or not. If op is not, it's their problem they were stranded, it doesn't suddenly become the employers. (Just to be clear, in my opinion they have grounds for a suit). | |
| S Jan 17, 2019 at 5:00 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Jan 17, 2019 at 5:00 | comment | added | Jane S | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Jan 16, 2019 at 8:06 | history | answered | Mawg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |