An orthodontist with seven years of experience faced an abrupt rejection just before his scheduled onboarding, leading to a lawsuit against the hiring company.
The job seeker, referred to as Xiao Wang, came across a dental company’s recruitment posting in 2024 and contacted Manager Zhang. After agreeing on job location, salary expectations, and interview arrangements, Wang traveled to Jiaxing, Zhejiang, for an in-person interview. Following the interview, Wang resigned from his previous job and completed a pre-employment medical checkup as required. Although the company provided dormitory accommodations, Wang opted to rent an apartment in Jiaxing at his own expense.
On August 19 and 26, Wang performed orthodontic modeling, data collection, and patient consultations at the company. On August 26, both parties signed an employment contract, set to take effect on September 2. However, two days before his start date, Wang inquired about his onboarding status and received an ambiguous "pending" response from Manager Zhang. Zhang cited internal restructuring as the reason, suggesting Wang’s position might be adjusted or even eliminated. Zhang further claimed their relationship was merely "part-time," with daily wages instead of formal employment, and ultimately stated, "We’re not a good fit," advising Wang to seek other opportunities.
On his supposed first day, the company issued a formal notice, citing "internal reasons" for revoking the job offer and declaring the signed contract void. Having relocated specifically for this role, Wang filed a lawsuit against the dental company in Jiaxing’s Nanhu District Court, seeking compensation for relocation expenses, lost income, and missed job opportunities.
In court, the company argued that Wang had never officially started employment, framing his prior work as part-time. They also accused him of professional errors leading to customer complaints and failing a probationary assessment. Additionally, they contended that Wang’s self-arranged housing costs were unnecessary since dormitory accommodations were provided.
**Court Ruling: Company Liable for Breach of Good Faith, Ordered to Pay 10,000 CNY in Damages** The court found that negotiations between Wang and the company had consistently centered on formal employment, not part-time work. The company never disclosed the possibility of a part-time arrangement during the hiring process. Both parties had taken steps typical of formal employment, including medical checks and housing arrangements, culminating in a signed contract.
While the company labeled Wang’s August 19 and 26 work as "part-time," the court ruled this did not retroactively redefine their initial agreement. The two parties had already agreed on core employment terms—salary, job duties, and role requirements—and signed a contract. Wang had reasonable expectation and reliance on the formal employment commencing September 2.
The company’s last-minute rejection, first citing "internal restructuring" and later "customer complaints," breached good faith principles. Even if complaints existed, the court noted they did not meet the contractual threshold for unilateral termination. The company was thus held liable for pre-contractual negligence.
Regarding damages, Wang only substantiated his rental expenses. However, since company housing was available, the court deemed his personal rental choice not a direct loss caused by the breach. Ultimately, factoring in Wang’s relocation costs, lost income from resigning, and missed job opportunities, the court ordered the company to pay 10,000 CNY in compensation.
Both parties accepted the verdict, and the ruling is now legally binding.
Comments