Does it work both ways? If the applicant says they accept the job and then later says they went with a different company, like the applicant in OP’s post?
You can only make a claim like that if you can prove real damages. The idea is that someone made you a promise, and based on that promise you took steps that cost you real money. Maybe you quit your job. Or you paid to move cities and all the related costs.
So the employer would have to prove they suffered real damages as a direct results of the employee backing out. And that would be difficult in most cases. After all, in most cases the result of an employee backing out will just be the status quo the company was already operating under. And they would have to show why they couldn’t just go with another candidate.
It would be a lot harder for an employer to make this kind of claim than an employee. Sure you can imagine some edge cases where a company spent a lot of money in expectation of a new employee. But usually a new employee backing out just means the company keeps operating in the exact same state it was previously.
I’m assuming if you are an applicant and you took one offer and rejected another, and then the company you accepted then rescinded their offer, and it’s too late to accept the other offer, that alone wouldn’t be enough in damages to sue right?
Likewise if a company gave an offer to an applicant, the applicant accepted so the company rejected all other applicants, and then the applicant who accepted rescinded their acceptance, company doesn’t get to claim damages?
In the US, this isn’t illegal, but it is something you can sue an employer over. At-will employment does not apply here.
It’s a claim of promissory estopel.
Does it work both ways? If the applicant says they accept the job and then later says they went with a different company, like the applicant in OP’s post?
You can only make a claim like that if you can prove real damages. The idea is that someone made you a promise, and based on that promise you took steps that cost you real money. Maybe you quit your job. Or you paid to move cities and all the related costs.
So the employer would have to prove they suffered real damages as a direct results of the employee backing out. And that would be difficult in most cases. After all, in most cases the result of an employee backing out will just be the status quo the company was already operating under. And they would have to show why they couldn’t just go with another candidate.
It would be a lot harder for an employer to make this kind of claim than an employee. Sure you can imagine some edge cases where a company spent a lot of money in expectation of a new employee. But usually a new employee backing out just means the company keeps operating in the exact same state it was previously.
I’m assuming if you are an applicant and you took one offer and rejected another, and then the company you accepted then rescinded their offer, and it’s too late to accept the other offer, that alone wouldn’t be enough in damages to sue right?
Likewise if a company gave an offer to an applicant, the applicant accepted so the company rejected all other applicants, and then the applicant who accepted rescinded their acceptance, company doesn’t get to claim damages?
I’m not an attorney. I don’t know the specifics of it. I’m not sure what the exact bounds of provable damages are.
Also, companies know better. If they sue someone who did not start yet, nobody who has other options will ever apply, because why risk it.