Candidate has heart attack before starting job...?

March22Collector

Here is one for you...We offered a candidate a salaried position pending the outcome of a drug screen and physical. The employee was supposed to take the drug screen and physical last week, and their start date was tentative for 2 weeks from today. Here is the story:

The candidate is driving to our company's doctor for the drug screen and physical when his wife calls him on his cell phone. She informs him that the doc had called and because of a family emergency had to reschedule the appointment. The candidate leaves me a message that the appointment has been rescheduled and I in turn call both the doc and the candidate to confirm. The rescheduled appointment is set for this week.

I receive a call today from one of the candidates references. This person informs me that while driving home from the cancelled doc appointment, the candidate had a massive heart attack. He was care-flighted to a nearby hospital where he is to undergo 5-bypass surgery today. The reference tells me that the candidate wanted him to call and express his desire to still obtain the position, after the 4-5 weeks off that the doc has predicted.

What would you do, or could you do legally, in this situation? Our policy is set up that if an employee fails the drug screen or physical that our offer of employment is rescinded. But in this case, the candidate can not make it to the doc's appointment. Are we required to wait now, or can we rescind the offer? If it makes any difference, we have been looking to fill this position for almost a year now.

All opinions are appreciated. Thanks!

Rockie

WOW. If it weren't for bad luck.....

I will take a stab at this.

The candidate is unavailable to work and not available to fulfill the pre-employment screening that is required as a condition of employment. I would advise the candidate that, regretably, you must continue the recruiting process. When he is available to work, he is welcome to apply for any position that might be available.

Since the candidate has technically not yet become an employee, I would think you would not have any legal obligations towards him at this point.

However...if you wanted to hold the position for him, I don't think there is anything that would preclude this either.

Don D

I agree with Rockie that you CAN reject him at this point because he is technically unavailable. We are under no obligation to hold our recruitment efforts in limbo due to one's temporary unavailability due to medical (or other) reasons. If your company's concern is of inheriting a potential insurance liability, this seems to be your way out. Simply advise him as Rockie suggested and move on with filling the position. Don't state that concern on the Forum or elsewhere, however. On the other hand, if you have no such concern, and considering that your position has been unfilled for over a year, you may certainly wait out his period of incapacity, then send him for your company physical.

Balloonman

This is another good example of why you should hold off letters to top candidates saying that someone else was hired. Think about how many times it came down to two candidates, very very similar or both qualified. By holding off on those letters, you could now contact the other top candidate and offer the job.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

March22Collector

Thanks for all the replies. I ended up contacting our attorney, and he said basically the same as everyone here...... Should have saved my money. :-)

Don D

Last caution from me: If you are intent on passing over him, you'd best go ahead and get the position filled prior to his recovery date, or YOU WILL be under a considerable amount of expectation to consider him again when he shows back up and your slot is unfilled.

A court will likely reason that since you recently extended an offer and don't when he recovers, that you MUST be rejecting him because of his medical condition. That's one side of the coin. The other side is that our workplaces are full of people who've had heart attacks who are top producers and we should not be about the business of discriminating against previously or presently ill people. Since I covered both sides of the coin, I shouldn't be stoned too violently.