Being 'ghosted' by employer after job offer - please help!

[CarlyD156]

I would love some thoughts/advice. Last Fri (31 May) I was offered a job offer. It's a small organisation (no HR team) but the manager was very communicative, answering my questions on the emails. By Tues we had agreed a salary, which I negotiated to be a bit higher than the original offer.

I wanted to accept but felt like I needed to disclose things. 1 is that I already have leave booked for a 3 week honeymoon, some of which I'd have to take unpaid as I wouldn't accrue enough leave. The second is that I have a health condition that requires me to work from home one day a week. Of course, I could have waited til I had a contract to chat about this stuff but I didn't want anyone to feel 'tricked' and thought it'd be better to be totally upfront.

The problem is, since that email, they have ignored me! It's now end of Friday, so 3.5 days since I contacted them. I am getting really anxious and didn't want it hanging over me over the weekend, so I sent a friendly prompt this morning. But still nothing (it's now 5.30pm).

Has anyone experienced anything similar? What does it sound like has happened? And what would you do in my shoes?? I went through 3 interviews to get the role so I don't want to give up on it, but I also am getting slight red flags!

Thank you xxxx

@flowery well nothing I'd request would be unreasonable. There isn't any physical adjustments needed. And if there were there are grants available from the government.

If a job can be done from home, and it helps alleviate the disadvantage to the employee then it's reasonable.

What ACAS or ET consider reasonable is fairly low bar. As long as it doesn't cause financial burden, doesn't impact the health and safety of others and can be done then it's reasonable

”flowery well nothing I'd request would be unreasonable. There isn't any physical adjustments needed. And if there were there are grants available from the government.”

Ok well that’s specific to you then. In plenty of cases it wouldn’t be obvious that adjustments would be able to be accommodated so it wouldn’t be sensible to resign an existing job without being sure.

”If a job can be done from home, and it helps alleviate the disadvantage to the employee then it's reasonable.” Yes indeed, but that’s assuming this particular job can be done at home.

”What ACAS or ET consider reasonable is fairly low bar. As long as it doesn't cause financial burden, doesn't impact the health and safety of others and can be done then it's reasonable”

Thank you I realise that.

It may be that the OP’s condition is a disability, we don’t know. It may be that working from home is a reasonable adjustment to the new role, we don’t know. If both those things are true then of course they should agree it.

What I do know is that when interacting with a new employer and working out the terms of a new contract of employment, going through the negotiations and finalising them and then just announcing that you ‘have to’ work from home one day a week isn’t a good way to approach it and is likely to get their backs up.

If the OP declared a disability, she is entitled to ask for a reasonable accommodation to allow her to work

The clue's in the word "reasonable". If her need to work at home one day a week is something that can be easily accommodated, fine. However, there are many occupations where that is simply not possible, and in that situation the adjustment required becomes unreasonable.

This thread is utterly depressing. Almost every response shows the discrimination people with disabilities face in the work place.

An interview is about the candidate' suitability and fit for the job. It is not about health or disabilities. A candidate may choose to declare a disability early in the recruitment process but they are absolutely not required to, quite the opposite. Discrimination happens all the time - that's why age and indicators of age should not be on application forms, for example. Avoiding revealing something that could be cause for discrimination is, sadly, recognised by law as being the best way to avoid being discriminated against.

OP waited until she was offered the job and that she would want to take it, before revealing her disability. In this case, that required negotiating and confirming the salary. The organisation had no right or need to know anything about a personal, medical condition unless she was going to be their employee.

The reaction of 'ghosting' her shoes that she was right not to raise the issue before. She would have discriminated against. She is, it would seem, now. If wfh one a day a week is a reasonable adjustment that cannot be made (hard to see why, in this day and age - presumably it's the type of work that doesn't require a physical presence like nursing, teaching, etc do) then the manager should have replied saying so. Maybe the delay is because he wants to be sure this will be no problem/he wants to see how this can be managed or something, but he should have sent then a polite and quick reply to say that.

I would phone on Monday and politely enquire if/when you will be sent full confirmation of the offer and a contract. If the need for a reasonable adjustment is the issue, you may be told or be able to infer more clearly from a conversation than an email.

But if the candidates “suitability and fit for the job “ involves being in the office 5 days a week then that’s not OP apparently.
I think it’s the way it was done

• I would like more money ( fine)
• I have a 3 week holiday booked (ok)
• I need to work from home 1 day a week

All 3 together like that just sound like CF ery

”OP waited until she was offered the job and that she would want to take it, before revealing her disability.”

Well she hasn’t “revealed her disability” on this thread yet either. And if she has a disability, she hasn’t explained that to the employer and asked them whether the adjustment she needs can be accommodated, she’s just told them this is what’s happening.

For me it would be the fact you’ve not been open and honest to front

I have a number of employees who have additional needs due to health and we can mostly work around them. But for you to throw something structural like that after accepting the job. I’d be withdrawing my offer.

I don't see an issue with declaring a health condition after negotiation, but I do see an issue with stating that said health condition would mean I had to WTH one day a week at that stage. That should have definitely been raised earlier, especially if the job role is meant to be premises based and no other employees work from home.

I suspect they're now negotiating with their second choice before retracting their offer.

Have you tried ringing them to put your mind at ease?

It's all about the wording and approach:

Instead of

The second is that I have a health condition that requires me to work from home one day a week which sounds non-negotiable, as a condition of employment that had to be accommodated, which instead could have been delivered along the lines of:

"I have a medical condition which means I get very tired. What has worked really well for me in my current role is being able to wfh 1 day a week to helps me manage my fatigue proactively" - making it more open to dialogue and not such an immovable demand (as the employer might perceive it so early in the relationship.)

Placemarking to see how this turns out... if op comes back... also placing a tenner on anxiety being the condition

In fact if the employer is reasonable and really wants to take on a candidate, it doesn't even need to be a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act for them to want to support an employee. It's just RAs become somewhat more certain because they are tied to a protected characteristic (but still must be achievable for the employer to support).

Some companies are zero remote working, by default it just isn't supported, so the only way it can be achieved is to put it forward on the basis of RA, otherwise it's blanket refusal. And those companies push back because if precedent is created, they see trouble ahead having disgruntled staff feeling they are treated unfairly if others can and they can't. It's a can of worms for them.

The approach from daisychain01 would have worked better.

Nice to place bets on someone's disability, or do I detect cynicism like they must be making it up ???

I suppose it will also depend on if the WFH day has to be the same day every week? Depending on the role/environment is it the type of employment where numbers in the office/base count? Would that then mean people had to plan leave and everything else around the WFH days?

One of my staff has MS. Some days he just can’t make it in. Some days he’ll work from home. But it was clear from before the start that we understood his condition and that we work together to work for him and the company and it works very well we have an awesome employee and he has time he needs. But if it wasn’t disclosed I’d be pissed off.

Everyone who is talking about disability discrimination, unless I've missed it, OP hasn't said she has a disability has she? I have a health condition which means I couldn't work full time. I work part time, on a flexible contract which means that on a good week, I can make up my hours. I appreciate not everyone can have this flexibility, it took me 6 years to find a job I could cope with. I don't have a disability though so wouldn't be protected under the DDA. This may be the case for OP too.

@OP, if you have a disability within the Equality Act then I think the law is on your side and you would be able to take them to employment tribunal if the offer is withdrawn (if you have stated ‘disability’ in your demand to WFH). I think you know that though and may have played them.

Sorry, Equality Act.

”Everyone who is talking about disability discrimination, unless I've missed it, OP hasn't said she has a disability has she?”

No, and I suspect she would have done if that were the case, either in her OP or shortly afterwards based on responses.

@Today - are you sure you aren’t covered by the Equality Act 2010? I have depression and didn’t think it was classed as a disability but it is. It’s something I have been treated for for a number of years, I need to take medication for it and my condition is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. If your health condition has a similar effect on your day to day life it could fall within the Act.

this thread worries me.

I'm disabled with an assistance dog. I am currently looking for alternative work and I am trying to be upfront right from the beginning about my disabilities and dog.

I don't know how successful I will be and I can totally understand people not declaring until afterwards

Personally though, I'd much rather know as soon as possible if an employer has an issue about it. As its not an employer I'd want to work for.

It means a longer job search though which not everyone can endure.

@FFS, the job centre might be able to give you a list of local employers who have signed up to the Disability Confident (formerly Two Ticks) Scheme. This usually ensures disabled applicants are guaranteed an interview.

Local councils, NHS and universities are likely to have signed up to the scheme.

@Binting it's definitely not classed as a disability. To be honest though, even if it was I don't think the adjustment needed would be considered reasonable, I rarely know from one hour to the next how I'll feel, my current employer allows me to just leave when I need to

Honestly if a potential candidate announced those three things to me only after negotiating salary as a bit of a footnote . I would deem them unsuitable for my company. It's not the requests themselves but the way it was done.