Caught interviewing and asked to leave

wcfever's picture
wcfever - Certified Professional
Rank: Orangutan | banana points 320

Hey everyone,

My interviewer met up with my boss at a networking event and long story short the interviewer revealed I was interviewing at his firm.

My firm is likely to ask me to leave as they are very unhappy about it. Just wondering, how do you guys go about your job search to protect yourself from such instances? This seems like pure bad luck that can't be prevented but happy to hear any thoughts.

ty

Hi Anonymous Monkey, upload your resume and land a job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (89)

Most Helpful
Jun 27, 2018

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

    • 35
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 27, 2018
bfd:

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

Beats me.... Does it make sense to complain to their HR about this? But it doesn't bring me any good to be honest.

Jun 27, 2018
bfd:

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

I'm curious if there are employment laws against this. I guess I've never thought about it since it's in such horrible form to rat out a job candidate that it rarely happens.

Jun 27, 2018
real_Skankhunt42:
bfd:

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

I'm curious if there are employment laws against this. I guess I've never thought about it since it's in such horrible form to rat out a job candidate that it rarely happens.

No laws, but in the land of the free and home of the lawsuit; this could easily be grounds for punitive damages, pain and suffering, and reimbursed legal expenses.

I worked at a place where a person of a certain race was let go with cause. That person claimed discrimination with racial slurs being spoken. Despite the fact all of this was false; internal legal motioned to settle to just keep the noise down.

    • 3
    • 1
Jun 27, 2018
WolfofWSO:
real_Skankhunt42:
bfd:

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

I'm curious if there are employment laws against this. I guess I've never thought about it since it's in such horrible form to rat out a job candidate that it rarely happens.

No laws, but in the land of the free and home of the lawsuit; this could easily be grounds for punitive damages, pain and suffering, and reimbursed legal expenses.

I worked at a place where a person of a certain race was let go with cause. That person claimed discrimination with racial slurs being spoken. Despite the fact all of this was false; internal legal motioned to settle to just keep the noise down.

Well, to your point, if I'm the OP and I get let go I sue the company's HR guy that ratted me out. Getting fired has all kinds of negative repercussions for years to come. I would sue the f*ck out of him and his company. And if I'm a juror I award a stupid amount of money to deter behavior like this in the future. This kind of shit poisons the recruiting well for everyone.

Jul 6, 2018

If there are no laws how can you sue lol? You can't sue person A because person A said something true about you to person B unless you made person A sign a contract saying he can't to that. Free speech is the general rule in America (at least for now).

Your only protection from this is person A not being a moron and caring about his firm's reputation. If you told us the firm that snitched on you, I'd never ever trust them

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
    • 1
    • 2
Jul 6, 2018

It's not illegal to do lots of things that are governed by civil cases. That's why it's civil and not criminal law.

Jul 6, 2018

You have to break a law in order to suffer a penalty. The "law" can come in a few different forms - statutes passed by Congress, judicial precedent, or some regulation from an agency like the SEC.

If you filed a lawsuit because your interviewer told someone else you interviewed, it would get tossed out ASAP AND the judge would fine the shit out of your lawyer for wasting everyone's time. Just because someone screws you and it pisses you off doesn't mean you get to sue

I was a lawyer before I switched to banking man

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
    • 1
Jul 7, 2018
Draymond23:

You have to break a law in order to suffer a penalty. The "law" can come in a few different forms - statutes passed by Congress, judicial precedent, or what a regulatory agency passes.

If you filed a lawsuit based on these facts, it would get tossed out ASAP (the company would be like "lol even if what he says it's true, I haven't broken any laws") AND the judge might fine your lawyer for wasting everyone's time.

I was a lawyer before I switched to banking man

This is the dumbest comment I've ever read in my life. You don't have to break any law to be sued and to lose the case. What the hell are you talking about? If you were a lawyer you were a horrible lawyer. I'm re-posting this from below:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/wro... Interference with Employment Relationship: When a person other than an employer intentionally interferes with another person's employment relationship and thereby causes the other person to lose his/her job, that interfering person might be liable for the economic losses that result.

The person damaged by the interference (the employee) will usually need to prove the following things in order to sue:

1) There was an existing employment relationship;
2) The person who caused the interference was a third party to the relationship (i.e. the relationship was not between the person damaged and the person who interfered);
3) The third party's conduct interfered with the relationship;
4) The third party intended to interfere; and
5) The third party's conduct caused the employee's termination.

In most states, the employee also needs to prove that the third party was not justified in interfering with the employment relationship.

Jul 7, 2018

Jesus Christ. I can see i'm talking to a brick wall here. Cutting and pasting random law you've never seen applied in real life and screaming "slam dunk case!" isn't smart man.

Pretend you're the other side's lawyer and ask yourself what you'd say about this hilariously irrelevant law you pasted. You'd say 1) good luck proving intent. you have to intentionally interfere (ie, the guy had to snitch on you specifically BECAUSE his plan was to get you fired). This will he nearly impossible for you to show, 2) no judge on planet earth is going to interpret "interfering" with employment as merely telling your boss you interviewed with them. im shocked that you don't see how dumb this sounds. by that standard you'd need a lawyer in the room literally everytime you talk to people from another company. and the first amendment wouldn't mean anything. tortious interference is really about crazy shit like threatening your boss to fire you, not just telling them you're job hunting lol. the general rule is you can't be punished for speech absent a few tiny exceptions, 3) you need to prove causation. good luck proving that you were fired because of what the company told your boss. what if you sucked at your job and the firm was planning to cut you anyway?

also, google "failure to state a claim" and "rule 11 sanctions". both would apply here. just to get your foot in the door of a courtroom you have to accuse the other side of breaking some law or you'll get tossed out. and rule 11 means your lawyer will get fined for being dumb

it's one thing to be dumb and another thing to be dumb AND arrogant at the same time smh.

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
    • 4
    • 3
Jul 7, 2018

Wow, a lot to unpack here. Let me just preface this by noting that it's obvious you weren't a lawyer and that you're lying about your law background because you have zero clue what you're talking about.

Draymond23:

Jesus Christ. I can see i'm talking to a brick wall here. Cutting and pasting random law you've never seen applied in real life and screaming "slam dunk case!" isn't smart man.

First of all, since you're allegedly a lawyer, you'd know that I didn't paste a law; I pasted a principle surrounding interference with employment contracts. If you had been a lawyer--as you falsely claimed--you'd know the difference.

Draymond23:

Pretend you're the other side's lawyer and ask yourself what you'd say about this hilariously
irrelevant law you pasted.

Again, I didn't post a law, but I guess that's the only terminology they teach at the law school you didn't attend.

Draymond23:

You'd say 1) good luck proving intent. you have to intentionally interfere (ie, the guy had to snitch on you specifically BECAUSE his plan was to get you fired). This will he nearly impossible for you to show,

In civil law, you don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; you'd just have to demonstrate to a jury that it would be unlikely for you to accidentally let slip the first and last name of the person you interviewed to his boss at a party, that doing so is completely out of bounds in the arena of employment given the ramifications on one's career, and that it probably (probably is key in the realm of civil law) led to the plaintiff's termination.

Draymond23:

2) no judge on planet earth is going to interpret "interfering" with employment as merely telling your boss you interviewed with them. im shocked that you don't see how dumb this sounds.

Uh, you do know that both the plaintiff AND the defendant have the right--in most instances--to request a JURY trial, right? But setting aside your gross ignorance of U.S. civil law and assuming only a judge was deciding the case, of course a reasonable judge could designate that behavior as interference with one's employment. Since we're using the term "reasonable," every reasonable person on planet Earth knows that you don't divulge to the boss of the person you interviewed the fact that you interviewed him. This is common knowledge--this isn't a revelation.

Draymond23:

by that standard you'd need a lawyer in the room literally everytime you talk to people from another company.

That's asinine. That's utterly asinine. You don't need a lawyer in a room to prevent you from divulging the name of the person you're interviewing for a job.

Draymond23:

and the first amendment wouldn't mean anything.

What law school did you go to? The First Amendment is a legal protection of citizens from the GOVERNMENT. There are a lot of things that you can say that will get you sued that aren't criminal. I refuse to believe you went to law school, graduated, and practiced law. How did you pass the bar? Seriously. You're either a pathological liar or a bad lawyer.

Draymond23:

tortious interference is really about crazy shit like threatening your boss to fire you, not just telling them you're job hunting lol.

"Threatening your boss to fire you"? What the hell are you talking about?

Draymond23:

the general rule is you can't be punished for speech absent a few tiny exceptions,

It's almost as if you didn't know that the 1st Amendment is a protection against punishment from government. It's almost like you never took a Constitutional law class because, like, ya never went to law school...Did you?

Draymond23:

3) you need to prove causation. good luck proving that you were fired because of what the company told your boss. what if you sucked at your job and the firm was planning to cut you anyway?

Right, that's called discovery. That's what happens in lawsuits. That's why many suits are settled before they go to trial; the defendant would want to avoid the process. In civil cases, however, the standard of "preponderance of evidence" is the standard for victory. Circumstantial evidence is what often wins a civil jury trial. For example, you have good performance reviews and a good reputation at work, then the fact that you interviewed with another company is revealed, and a week later you were fired for unknown causes. A juror sees that and likely says that it's "more likely than not" (preponderance of the evidence) that the plaintiff was terminated because the interviewer of the other company revealed information that is generally considered to be confidential in the professional world. This would be tortitious interference.

Draymond23:

also, google "failure to state a claim"

In other words, the defense asserts that you can't tie the defendant's specific action to the established harm. Congratulations--that's why's there's a trial. If the jury thinks it's more likely than not that the defendant's actions caused the harm then they can award damages. Preponderance of the evidence...

Draymond23:

and "rule 11 sanctions".

No, it would only apply if the lawyer brought a bad case. We don't have all the facts of the case. How on Earth could you claim Rule 11 sanctions would apply when you--and I--hardly have any of the real, actual facts of the case?

Draymond23:

just to get your foot in the door of a courtroom you have to accuse the other side of breaking some law or you'll get tossed out.

No, that's not true at all. That's not even tangentially true. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I can think of nearly endless examples of how what you're saying is wrong. If I trip and fall and accidentally injure someone as I'm falling, I can still be successfully sued by that person. And the list goes on and on. Pretty much all real estate civil law is surrounding non-criminal activity; in fact, most of it doesn't even have precedent--it consists of judges and juries making it up as they go along. Regardless, tortious interference with a contract has some standard in all 50 states + D.C. that may have been broken--facts dependent--in this case.

Draymond23:

it's one thing to be dumb and another thing to be dumb AND arrogant at the same time smh.

This is the blackhole calling the kettle black.

Jul 7, 2018

Edit

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
Jul 8, 2018
Draymond23:

I don't know why you felt the need to write so much. I'm certainly not going to read any of it.

Even though this is actually pretty silly of me to do, I'll go ahead and leave this here for a short period of time (note I purposely left my torts grade on my transcript because that's the area of law you apparently know better than I do):

http://i.imgur.com/62TIr81.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NbudeqG.jpg

I didn't "write so much"--I responded to what you wrote line by line and pointed out that you are a horrible lawyer and don't understand the very basics of torts or even Constitutional law. Maybe you should read it and see if you can learn something. If you actually did attend Harvard Law School (and I'm almost certain that not only did you not attend HLS, you didn't attend any law school) then that's an indictment on Harvard Law because you don't know what you're talking about.

Jul 8, 2018

I would just note that I'm not a lawyer (anymore), as I already mentioned above. Also note that my account is verified as being in ibd, which you're (somehow) also ignoring despite it staring you in the face. I also literally provided a screen shot of my student Id (with "Draymond23" written on paper) plus transcript (!!) and you're (hilariously/insanely) still convinced that I've never been to law school. Holy shit.

My general life advice for you based on this exchange is to learn to change your views/hypotheses/conjectures based on new facts.

this feels like the twilight zone so I'm gonna leave you alone now. I hate that I went down this rabbit hole.

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
Jul 10, 2018
Draymond23:

I would just note that I'm not a lawyer (anymore), as I already mentioned above. Also note that my account is verified as being in ibd, which you're (somehow) also ignoring despite it staring you in the face. I also literally provided a screen shot of my student Id (with "Draymond23" written on paper) plus transcript (!!) and you're (hilariously/insanely) still convinced that I've never been to law school. Holy shit.

My general life advice for you based on this exchange is to learn to change your views/hypotheses/conjectures based on new facts.

this feels like the twilight zone so I'm gonna leave you alone now. I hate that I went down this rabbit hole.

Again, if you've been to law school, you're one of the worst trained lawyers in America and a poor representative of your alma mater.

Jul 10, 2018

I'm devastated. I care a TON about your opinion. There's a reason I stopped responding to your "analysis" (in the loosest sense of the word lmao) and just started calling you stupid instead. Can't risk sullying my brain by exposing it to that shit.

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
Jul 10, 2018

unlawful termination?

Jul 6, 2018
WolfofWSO:
real_Skankhunt42:
bfd:

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

I'm curious if there are employment laws against this. I guess I've never thought about it since it's in such horrible form to rat out a job candidate that it rarely happens.

No laws, but in the land of the free and home of the lawsuit; this could easily be grounds for punitive damages, pain and suffering, and reimbursed legal expenses.

I worked at a place where a person of a certain race was let go with cause. That person claimed discrimination with racial slurs being spoken. Despite the fact all of this was false; internal legal motioned to settle to just keep the noise down.

Were you actually present for that? Otherwise how do you know what happened/who was lying?

    • 1
Jul 18, 2018

Was not present, but saw a paper trail a mile long of the individual's poor performance, write ups, and other complaints. Only after said individual was fired did any notion of racial slurs being spoken come up...

Jun 28, 2018
bfd:

My thought is, why did that interviewer rat on you to your boss? Bad form by that guy, really bad form.

This. Sue the bastard. Thats some real scumbag shit on the part of the interviewer.

Unfortunately, for you and your employer, it would appear that he doesn't value you very much. Whether that's justified or not is for you to decide, but if I were you, I wouldn't want to work there any longer regardless of what happens.

    • 1
Jun 28, 2018

If you are fired I genuinely think you have reason and cause to seek damages. There at epeivacy rules regarding this I am sure and t is absolutely wrong for this guy to have said anything to anyone, especially your boss.

    • 1
Jul 6, 2018

Totally agree. I would not want to work for that firm anymore based on that type of behavior. The second the interviewer realized your boss was from the same firm he should have been tight-lipped about it.

Certified Asset Management Pro - Learn more.
Jun 27, 2018

Most interviewers use their common sense and realize they should probably not mention that their target is looking for a job when talking to said target's boss.

However, situations like yours can happen - small world. Could've been in the same analyst class, could have been friends in college, their kids might play on the same basketball team etc..He probably wanted some intel on you before offering you the position.

For future reference though, if you don't want your current firm to know you're looking for opportunities, you need to always tell the recruiter/interviewer that you want it kept confidential.

    • 6
Jun 27, 2018
buzzkillington:

Most interviewers use their common sense and realize they should probably not mention that their target is looking for a job when talking to said target's boss.

However, situations like yours can happen - small world. Could've been in the same analyst class, could have been friends in college, their kids might play on the same basketball team etc..He probably wanted some intel on you before offering you the position.

For future reference though, if you don't want your current firm to know you're looking for opportunities, you need to always tell the recruiter/interviewer that you want it kept confidential.

Yes that's a good point. I would bear that in mind in the future! Thank you.

Jun 28, 2018

This happened to me once with a top BB firm... interviewer was frat bros with my boss and while my boss never brought it up, he did fwd me an email that his friend (my interviewer) sent him that was industry-related, no way it was a coincidence.

Certified Corporate Finance Pro - Learn more.
    • 2
Jun 27, 2018

Wow, that interviewer really owes you a job now.

Jun 27, 2018
MichaelScarn:

Wow, that interviewer really owes you a job now.

Nope, I have been kicked out of their process too...

Jun 27, 2018

That guy's such an a-hole!

    • 2
Jun 27, 2018
MichaelScarn:

That guy's such an a-hole!

Yeap, its unfortunate but I am trying to figure out how to prevent such instances from happening in the future.

Jun 27, 2018

I am pretty sure you can bring a suit if you get fired. That's why HR departments ask if it is OK to contact your current employer, cause doing so without your permission can get them into legal trouble.

Jun 27, 2018

^Yes, I COMPLETELY agree with this. Lawyer their asses up.

Jun 27, 2018

While I'm not litigious 'effin with someone's job and how they eat and pay rent and live deeply upsets me.

Jun 28, 2018

Spent a solid ten seconds reading this wondering what his story has to do with him wearing a suit to the office.

    • 2
    • 3
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 27, 2018

Do hiring managers really go to "networking events"?

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 1
    • 1
Jun 27, 2018
GoldenCinderblock:

Do hiring managers really go to "networking events"?

to be more precise, it was an industry conference.

Jun 27, 2018

Damn that's just a stroke of bad luck. Sorry to hear it, dude. It's a shame how bad things are with respect to labor supply that a manager feels confident stomping around like that.

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
Jun 27, 2018

Companies should be willing to let workers interview with who ever they want and if you get an offer they can either give you a better offer or just deal with it. Companies should also be willing to let their workers know of other opportunities that their employees might be interested in.

Funniest
Jun 27, 2018

I was once suspected of interviewing elsewhere (I wasn't) and bluntly confronted with, "Are you interviewing at other places?"

Coffee had yet to kick in so I scowled and said, "Should I be!?"

I quit about a month later anyway when a competitor tapped me.

    • 16
Jul 6, 2018

Reminds me of my boss at a former company... he asked me why I recently spruced up my LinkedIn profile and whether that meant I was looking for a new job. I told him it was none of his damn business. Left the company a month later. lol

Jun 28, 2018

This sucks and there isn't much you can do here. But I'd take two steps:

  1. Make it clear your boss doesn't know you're looking in any future interview, and request that they not contact your firm. If they push back, you can agree that they can call after you've accepted an offer but must check with you first.
  2. There's no point in sueing or making a huge public deal out of it, you'll come out looking bad too, and they haven't done anything illegal, just crappy. However, I would ABSOLUTELY reach out to this person's superiors and HR department to let them know both that they informed your boss that you were job hunting and that it directly led to your job loss. Do it professionally, maybe they have somewhere else they can refer you to. But more importantly, this person needs to be disciplined internally so that this issue doesn't occur with other future candidates.
Certified Consulting Pro - Learn more.
    • 3
Jun 28, 2018
BreakingOutOfPWM:

This sucks and there isn't much you can do here. But I'd take two steps:

  1. Make it clear your boss doesn't know you're looking in any future interview, and request that they not contact your firm. If they push back, you can agree that they can call after you've accepted an offer but must check with you first.
  2. There's no point in sueing or making a huge public deal out of it, you'll come out looking bad too, and they haven't done anything illegal, just crappy. However, I would ABSOLUTELY reach out to this person's superiors and HR department to let them know both that they informed your boss that you were job hunting and that it directly led to your job loss. Do it professionally, maybe they have somewhere else they can refer you to. But more importantly, this person needs to be disciplined internally so that this issue doesn't occur with other future candidates.

Something doesn't have to be illegal for you to sue. In fact, that's what most litigation is surrounding--non-criminal and very much legal activity. If the OP gets fired he likely won't be able to brush himself off and move on to the next industry job. That's not how this business works. He will almost certainly suffer real, actual financial losses.

Jun 28, 2018

Fair point. However, I'd be surprised if there is precedent to collect here unless you've told them they can't contact your company. OP is still probably better off contacting HR etc first; they might bend over backwards to help him out in this situation, and the results might be better than a lawsuit (which also becomes public).

Certified Consulting Pro - Learn more.
Jun 28, 2018
BreakingOutOfPWM:

Fair point. However, I'd be surprised if there is precedent to collect here unless you've told them they can't contact your company. OP is still probably better off contacting HR etc first; they might bend over backwards to help him out in this situation, and the results might be better than a lawsuit (which also becomes public).

I mean, you can try reaching out to HR--not sure what they can do. Give you a job?

There is all kinds of precedent surrounding interference with contracts. I can't think of a more direct way to interfere with a contract than to divulge information that is considered, by default, private. Does any reasonable person actually think that HR's default position is that it's their right to inform your current employer that they interviewed you? No reasonable person believes that. That's why most job application forms have areas dedicated to the question, "May we contact your manager?"

Edit: I've been reading around about this and, yes, every HR person in America knows that contacting a prospective's current employer without permission is a clear violation of their ethical code of conduct.

Jun 28, 2018

HR will never help employees. HR is effing useless and I hate most work for one and try to spin it otherwise. Their job is purely to reduce risk and protect the company. Contacting them is just giving them forewarning to start arming up.

Seriously FUCK all HR functions.

    • 4
Jul 9, 2018

Regarding #2, just threatening to sue might be enough to get them to settle. This obviously depends on how much you'd sue for, and how large the firm is, but there's a good enough chance that they'd decide that it isn't worth the time and legal fees to fight you in court.

Certified Investment Banking Pro - Learn more.
Jun 28, 2018

If you're part of a 2 year program, I don't think it's unfair to approach your boss and try to explain to him in a friendly, mollifying way that just because you're interviewing elsewhere does not mean that you intend to shirk your duties at your current firm.

Even if not part of a 2 year program, I again don't think it's unfair to approach your boss and explain that you were interviewing to "stay fresh"/"keep in practice", or because it "seemed like an interesting opportunity and I wanted to hear more".

I have never had a prick boss so perhaps I don't understand how it is. But personally, I have never been too guarded about the fact that I'm looking when I'm looking. There is no shame in wanting better things for yourself as long as your employer feels that you are still delivering on a day-to-day basis, and feels that you will not screw them over by leaving without transitioning matters. It's a soft skills thing, but if you are good enough at what you do and well-respected enough, I don't think your boss' incentives would be to fire you. That causes more disruption than keeping you on while he finds a replacement.

Jun 28, 2018

If you really want to stay, you need to impart that you looked around out of curiosity and it just affirmed your desire to be where you already are.

Also, if you didn't know this, don't quit under pressure. Make them fire you. Unemployment/severance/ etc all are void if you quit. There's really no downside to making them pull the trigger first.

Certified Consulting Pro - Learn more.
Jun 28, 2018

If you are an "at will" employee, you are legally allowed to interview elsewhere while at your current firm

Jun 28, 2018

Document all correspondence with the prospective company. Speak with an labor attorney. That shit is out of bounds. The only plausible scenario I can think of how this came about is the manager said "I work for x". and prospective company replied "Some great people over there, I met with Y recently" without realizing its your manager.

If it was deliberate, you may have a case.

This has happened to me once as well. The CEO of my medium sized company found out I was interviewing with a competitor and my boss called me one day after work to let me know. My reply was "ok, so what does this mean?". They were just trying to intimidate a young kid.

These things get pretty murky but once an org knows you're looking or you yourself mentally start focusing on new opps, it's best to see it through.

Jun 28, 2018

wcfever you interviewed with a dickweed...a tumbling tumbling dickweed.

Certified Corporate Development Pro - Learn more.
Jun 28, 2018

1) you are allowed to interview and see what opportunities are available for you out in the market, and you should be able to say this without fear of being fired, so long as it does not interfere with your current job performance. (i'm aware this is idealist...tho not realist)
2) if your current employer values you, they will accept that you will receive offers elsewhere, and they will try to convince you to stay.
3) you said you were "asked to leave"....language here matters....if just "asked", you can say "no thanks, i'd prefer to stay"...however, if they say "you are fired...security will escort you out" then you should ask "why?" and see what they say (they might not give a reason, or they might say something stupid that you can use against them in a lawsuit).
4) Then walk out the door and contact a labor attorney.

5) contact the firm you interviewed with, politely explain the situation, and politely ask if they can help you find another job, because it was their fault you were fired from your job. If they say they can't help, ask them to make a few phone calls and ask their peers at other firms if they have any open slots for your level. I've seen people do this in this exact situation, and it resulted in a job referral.

    • 1
Jun 28, 2018

Wait... Is that even legal? To sack someone because they're interviewing at someone's firm....

Jun 28, 2018

new york is an "at will" employment state...you can be fired for any reason (or no reason at all)

https://ag.ny.gov/labor/can-you-be-fired
but the other firm should be held liable...if not legally and financially..then morally and ethically

    • 1
Jun 28, 2018

I feel like they broke a company policy by doing this. Read the interviewer's company policy about this and let them know what happened. They'll probably offer you to not get sued lol

Jun 28, 2018

Double post. My bad.

Jun 28, 2018

All good

Jun 28, 2018

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/wro...
Wrongful Interference with Employment Relationship: When a person other than an employer intentionally interferes with another person's employment relationship and thereby causes the other person to lose his/her job, that interfering person might be liable for the economic losses that result.

The person damaged by the interference (the employee) will usually need to prove the following things in order to sue:

1) There was an existing employment relationship;
2) The person who caused the interference was a third party to the relationship (i.e. the relationship was not between the person damaged and the person who interfered);
3) The third party's conduct interfered with the relationship;
4) The third party intended to interfere; and
5) The third party's conduct caused the employee's termination.

In most states, the employee also needs to prove that the third party was not justified in interfering with the employment relationship.

Skank speaking: you have a slamdunk case of tortious interference with an employment relationship. I'm currently looking for a new job and your story makes my blood boil. Sue that motherfucker for all he's worth. No, sue his company. He fucked you over in his capacity with his company.

Jun 28, 2018

Doesn't having a lawsuit against an employer ruin your chances of ever getting an offer anywhere else tho? Especially for these ultra competitive jobs

Jun 28, 2018
ArbitrageSam:

Doesn't having a lawsuit against an employer ruin your chances of ever getting an offer anywhere else tho? Especially for these ultra competitive jobs

I would say getting fired for cause pretty much ruins your chance at a prestigious Wall Street job, hence the lawsuit seeking monetary and punitive damages. I look at #4 on the list: "The third party intended to interfere" and I have to think it's almost impossible to accidentally divulge the first and last name of the prospective in question at a party. Sue his company for millions of dollars and retire. I would.

Jun 28, 2018

If you were in good standing prior to this (we all assume so)...then assuming you went on to a standard illustrious career in the investment banking path --> analyst, associate --> VicePres --> managing director...you should be able to win a lawsuit (and they would most likely settle) for something in the range of 10 million (the total comp that you will now be denied because of their interference).

    • 1
Jun 28, 2018

To me, I wouldn't just focus on the compensatory damages; I would really sell to the jury (if it made it to trial) the fact that this kind of behavior poisons the well for job seekers and violates the unspoken, long-developed trust in the world of recruitment, that this unethical behavior needs to be stopped. I would make the hard sell for substantial punitive damages.

Jun 28, 2018

these things almost never goto trial...they get settled...and for less than what a jury would award. And we are all just talking out of our asses...only an employment lawyer will know for sure if this guy has a case

that website indicates
4) The third party intended to interfere

if the 3rd party unintentionally revealed that OP was interviewing (not sure how they argue that...but i'm sure they would)...they it fails the test. Regardless...banks have an army of lawyers on retainer for these things...they will be well protected. OP will have to prove the reason he was fired was because of the interview. While OP has verbal proof...i doubt he has anything recorded or in writing...and i doubt OP has witnesses. So this comes down to he said / she said. Its not a slam dunk. We can all agree what happened...and its obvious...but would a jury hear the same story? Would a jury award that much money? Hard to say....that's what the lawyers are for.

Jun 28, 2018
want2trade:

these things never goto trial...they get settled

Right, I'm just saying if it did go to trial I would hammer the company and drag their name through the mud and make the sell to the jury that punitive damages are required for the sake of society. And with this threat, to your point, is why they would probably settle for a handsome sum.

Jun 28, 2018
want2trade:

these things almost never goto trial...they get settled...and for less than what a jury would award. And we are all just talking out of our asses...only an employment lawyer will know for sure if this guy has a case

that website indicates
4) The third party intended to interfere

if the 3rd party unintentionally revealed that OP was interviewing (not sure how they argue that...but i'm sure they would)...they it fails the test. Regardless...banks have an army of lawyers on retainer for these things...they will be well protected. OP will have to prove the reason he was fired was because of the interview. While OP has verbal proof...i doubt he has anything recorded or in writing...and i doubt OP has witnesses. So this comes down to he said / she said. Its not a slam dunk. We can all agree what happened...and its obvious...but would a jury hear the same story? Would a jury award that much money? Hard to say....that's what the lawyers are for.

Obviously, we don't know the true details, but if the details are correct it's an obvious slamdunk case. If it goes to trial, you're basically asking a number of people in the know (interviewer and manager who fired the employee) to commit perjury, which is a crime that will be prosecuted. Why on Earth would the firing manager commit perjury? He has every right to fire the employee for any reason at all. He can tell the absolute truth and there is zero legal liability on his part in an at-will employment state.

The reality is, no juror in America is going to believe that the interviewer accidentally--in an incredible stroke of happenstance--revealed that he had interviewed [insert first and last name], who happened to be the direct report to the person at the party. Give me a break. And remember, civil trial standards of evidence are preponderance of the evidence (50%+1 more likely than not). The jury would have to be conviced that it was more likely an honest mistake. Not likely. You don't mistakenly speak in public about your recruiting and name drop in the process. At best it's gross negligence (a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both).

Jul 6, 2018

If OP has a calendar invite email, and they can subpoena one from the recruiter, that's proof enough right there. That'll kill the "he said" right there.

Jun 29, 2018

Think you hit the nail on the head, this is just pure bad luck. As bfd already said, bad form on the part of the interviewer.

Edit: FWIW, I wouldn't want to work for either of these scumbags

Certified Investment Advisor Pro - Learn more.
Jul 1, 2018

Appreciate all your inputs. It doesn't make sense for me to file a complain against the firm that ratted me out cause they have the resources to protect them and furthermore its just my word against my employer's word like what some have pointed out.

However, what should I do in the future to avoid such instances? Should I indicate my company's name as confidential on my resume? Any suggestions?

Appreciate all your inputs. Thank you.

Jul 1, 2018
wcfever:

Appreciate all your inputs. It doesn't make sense for me to file a complain against the firm that ratted me out cause they have the resources to protect them and furthermore its just my word against my employer's word like what some have pointed out.

No, this is what you aren't getting. Your employer wouldn't be in trouble. Your employer can fire you for wearing the wrong deodorant. Your employer has no incentive to lie. Lying under oath is called perjury and is a felony. If there is a civil case filed they aren't going to lie. What's their incentive to lie? Huge risk for zero gain.

You haven't been fired yet, and if you are there may be more to it than you're letting on. If they were going to fire you for interviewing they would probably have already done it.

Jul 2, 2018

wcfever, PLEASE I implore you to consider the sage advice given on this thread. You have to understand that you actually have a legitimate legal case here, and you should pursue this immediately because you have been unfairly fucked over.

Jul 2, 2018

This legal case is not going to happen. He is not going to get fired with the cause stated as 'going to the interview.' Maybe his boss does want to fire him and will fire him, but it won't be stated as this reason.

If they want to fire him, they are going to start picking up dirt on him and making a paper trail of warnings to eventually fire him.

I'm reading the original post though and the phrase 'my firm is likely to ask me to leave' seems highly speculative. Maybe you're just in the dog house for a week. Everyone interviews at other firms. If this is legit, it's ridiculous, unless you lied about where you were that day.

Certified Corporate Finance Pro - Learn more.
    • 1
Jul 2, 2018

First of all, you're completely right about them simply making up a different reason to fire him, if that's what they want to do. They'll start gathering a paper tail of minor infractions or perceived shortcomings. They can do whatever if they cover their bases.

I still think it's ridiculous even if he lied about where he was. I wouldn't tell a firm I was interviewing somewhere else. I assume when someone has a "doctor's appointment" in the middle of the week there's a 50/50 chance they're interviewing somewhere. It's the nature of the industry.

If I found out a firm actually did this to someone I'd avoid them like the plague. I once worked at a firm with a "no one should ever want to leave here" cult mentality and it was the worst culture I've ever experienced hands down.

"From now on, I want you to put an equal amount of blueberries in each muffin." -Sam "Ace" Rothstein

    • 1
Jul 7, 2018
Sam ''Ace'' Rothstein:

First of all, you're completely right about them simply making up a different reason to fire him, if that's what they want to do. They'll start gathering a paper tail of minor infractions or perceived shortcomings. They can do whatever if they cover their bases.

I still think it's ridiculous even if he lied about where he was. I wouldn't tell a firm I was interviewing somewhere else. I assume when someone has a "doctor's appointment" in the middle of the week there's a 50/50 chance they're interviewing somewhere. It's the nature of the industry.

If I

Ok, at this juncture the guy is probably not going to get fired and this is a moot point, but the larger point is that the current employer doesn't need to make up anything--they can fire him for any reason (not having to do with race, veteran status, religion, etc.).

Jul 6, 2018

thats fucked up homie

Jul 6, 2018

Dont know which jurisdiction you are in but there are laws that protect prospective employees. But you would have to have concrete proof of that in the form of emails etc not verbal. The person penalised would be the person from the firm that you were applying for. Realistically you wouldnt have any solid proof. Probably you'd get circumstantial proof to hold up in court. Consult a lawyer with your case. Yes it costs money but it depends on how far you want to take this.

Jul 7, 2018
Charles-Lee:

Dont know which jurisdiction you are in but there are laws that protect prospective employees. But you would have to have concrete proof of that in the form of emails etc not verbal. The person penalised would be the person from the firm that you were applying for. Realistically you wouldnt have any solid proof. Probably you'd get circumstantial proof to hold up in court. Consult a lawyer with your case. Yes it costs money but it depends on how far you want to take this.

No, this isn't correct! In a civil case, you just have to convince the jury that it's 51% likely that you were terminated because the prospective employer wrongly divulged your information ("preponderance of the evidence"). This isn't a criminal case where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"--circumstantial evidence is exactly the kind of evidence civil cases were designed for.

Jul 7, 2018

Yes you are certainly right that there are different levels of legal burden between civil and criminal cases. However, I am pointing out the case in a realistic way.

Either way civil or criminal, cases like this will be thrown out and will only be expensive for the person suing. Lest you are a rich person trying to make a point/have a vendetta.

Please consider the case in a realistic point of view. Think about how each party's lawyers argue in court and how each party will respond. Where do you expect that this person will get a hold of a paper trail indicating any wrongdoing by either parties. Are you going to ask for a subpoena for stuff like this? Most likely it will be verbal, and I hope you know that verbal circumstantial proof is one of the weakest forms of evidence to sway the jury. So you better get a superstar lawyer and we are at square one back to cost.

I'd say you were just unlucky and probably take a note of that name and spread it around your peers in the industry that he is very unprofessional. I have had this happened to me as well. It just sucks and disappointing, but you just gotta take the hit.

If you are to give someone advice you should probably try to understand the predicament that this person is in right now instead of harping on the minute details of the legal system.

Jul 8, 2018
Charles-Lee:

Please consider the case in a realistic point of view. Think about how each party's lawyers argue in court and how each party will respond. Where do you expect that this person will get a hold of a paper trail indicating any wrongdoing by either parties. Are you going to ask for a subpoena for stuff like this? Most likely it will be verbal, and I hope you know that verbal circumstantial proof is one of the weakest forms of evidence to sway the jury. So you better get a superstar lawyer and we are at square one back to cost.

You're WAY over complicating the case here. I'll accept that I don't know the specifics of this case--none of us knows the specifics--but it's pretty clear reading the OP's brief introduction to the situation that the interviewer revealed this information and that the information and reaction was probably public information thereafter--"My firm is likely to ask me to leave as they are unhappy about this." This indicates to me that this information was widely known throughout the company. So again, this goes back to the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. Yes, that requires people to testity to the events that occurred--the releasing of interviewee information and the firm's displeasure--but that's not an impossible task that would require brilliant counsel, as you suggest. Remember, that firm isn't being sued for wrongful termination--the other firm that improperly released information is being sued for tortious interference.

As others have said, this case wouldn't make it to trial. The defendant would probably settle when confronted with the situation.

Charles-Lee:

I'd say you were just unlucky and probably take a note of that name and spread it around your peers in the industry that he is very unprofessional. I have had this happened to me as well. It just sucks and disappointing, but you just gotta take the hit.

If you are to give someone advice you should probably try to understand the predicament that this person is in right now instead of harping on the minute details of the legal system.

This makes even less sense than your position to not sue (I can at least understand that point, although I strongly disagree with it). Once you are terminated (not laid off) from a prestigious job, your prospects are greatly diminished, if not expunged entirely. You have little to lose from there. I was laid off my first job out of college and the new HR person at the firm mistakenly labeled my layoff "terminated for cause" and it was an absolute poision pill. It nearly cost me an amazing job I had lined up, but I was able to get it worked out. Had I actually not been laid off and simply fired it would have ended my career while still on the runway, without a doubt.

Jul 6, 2018

Piss poor form by your interviewer, but I would seriously not try to do anything to them. Even if you get fired, better to take the lump and move on. I know it sucks, but you could seriously do more damage than good trying to exact revenge in this scenario. If you go the lawyer route, you may be industry black balled for quite a while. Sorry this happened to you. Hope a great opportunity comes your way and your success will be revenge enough.

Certified Private Equity Pro - Learn more.
Jul 6, 2018

That was a really jackass move on the interviewer's part. That sort of thing just isn't done. It could be that he's looking to jump ship too and needed some brownie points. Either way, dick move. If you get word you're about to get fired, I would reach out to the interviewer and say that you are getting fired as a direct result of his action and he needs to make it right (i.e. hire you). If he dodges the issue or you, I would say you should seriously think about a civil case. To that end, see if you can get your boss to admit why they're firing you (if they are), on paper, that will help you pretty much draw a line from cause to effect from that other guy's actions. Good luck.

Certified Sales & Trading Pro - Learn more.
    • 2
Jul 6, 2018

I'm assuming the best from people when I say this. Having interviewed hundreds of employment candidates over the years, it is possible that company leadership know one another casually well before candidates show up to interview. We should frankly assume this to be true. Conversations can and do happen between friends if there is no compelling reason for them not to.

One small prevenatative measure can go a long way: be explicit about the fact that you're interviewing and your current employer does not know that you're doing this. Ask for discretion. I can't imagine anyone I know from an HR department who would violate that request if it was made explicit.

I would simply caveat that if you make a comment like this in an interview, also be clear: 1. That if you do get an offer, that you will owe your current employer the respect of adequate notice and don't plan to jump ship without notice (this can make you look bad) 2. That you explored the options available to you through your current employer, and they either don't exist or they come with a condition that you can't meet (like you would have to move to some small island that serves only food you're allergic to). 3. That a career path in your new company is something you want as opposed to your soon-to-be ex-company for X reasons. A good interviewer will ask you this anyway. They won't likely want to hire a naturally disloyal or quick to disappear employee.

Be smart enough to be both honest and sensitive to everyone involved.

Certified Consulting Pro - Learn more.
    • 3
Jul 8, 2018

It's always smart to be interviewing and networking. You need to keep an idea of what your market value is. It's a great negotiating tactic for bonuses, promotions and salary bumps if you can point to comps.
So you got blown up. It's gonna happen over and over again during your career. At least your employer now knows you're a hustler and won't sit around waiting for them to pay you what you deserve.

Jul 8, 2018

Isn't there some sort of inherent confidentiality in applying for a job? Or even a clause in the terms and conditions saying your candidature is in confidence? Regarding background checks, these are in the T&Cs when applying i.e. only after receiving a formal offer, and even then, often requiring you to sign a disclosure allowing the company to do so!?

Of course they can google you for info in the public domain before offer but asking people specifically about you would be crossing the line in light of the confidentiality of your application. And talking at the kids baseball game in a weekend is off limits here. These guys are in banking and should know how far reaching insider trading rules extend so similarly should also be aware of any other confidentiality issues.

Your company sucks for sacking you for looking for a job and your interviewer is a freaking amateur. No surprises really, bankers may earn the dollars but they're really no different to the desk jockeys in other industries.

Jul 8, 2018

consider yourself lucky.

if you're boss was really a douche, he'd play games with you.

here's what I'd do.

1) congratuate you on your ambitions
2) offer you an immediate (large) pay raise to make you stay
3) the day after your raise kicks in, immediately humilate you in front of the office for some menial bullshit
4) fire your ass over said menial (made up) bullshit.

again, consider yourself lucky.

Jul 9, 2018

Bad luck. The interviewer is a moron.

    • 1
Jul 9, 2018

1-Click to Unlock All Comments - 100% FREE

Why do I need to be signed in?
WSO is a knowledge-sharing community that depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something.
+ Bonus: 6 Free Financial Modeling Lessons with 1-Click Signup ($199 value)
Certified Real Estate Pro - Learn more.
    • 1
Jul 9, 2018
Jul 9, 2018
Jul 10, 2018
Jul 12, 2018