Re: [tlug] Ghosted?

[James Tobin <jamesbtobin@example.com>]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 12:10, Curt J. Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:
>
> Was there anything in the contract that said they couldn't do this? If not,
> they're perfectly within their rights to do exactly this. If it bothers
> you, you could try to get future clients to sign a contract forbidding this
> sort of behaviour, but in my experience when you have a client that really
> doesn't want to work with you, you're better off getting separated as soon
> as reasonably possible, rather than trying to force them to work with you.
>

Thanks, Curt. I appreciate your perspective.

The final clause of the contract states:

Term: The Agreement shall be effective upon the Effective Date and
shall continue until terminated by either party in writing. The expiry
or earlier termination of this Agreement shall not affect or prejudice
(a) the rights, obligations or liabilities of either party which have
accrued prior to such expiry or termination; or (b) the operation of
any provision of this Agreement which is expressed to survive, or
which from its nature or context is intended to survive, such expiry
or termination.

Based on this, I’m asserting that obligations such as providing
feedback, progressing candidates, and honoring introductions made
prior to termination still apply. These are not casual
expectations—they’re part of the ongoing responsibilities embedded in
the agreement.

What’s troubling is that their legal team is now attempting to
weaponize specific contract terms, such as the clause stating that
recruitment must be initiated by HR. Yet historically, they’ve engaged
my services—including hiring candidates—without formal HR requests.
This pattern of conduct suggests a broader, more flexible working
relationship than the strict letter of the contract implies.

In 20 years, I’ve never encountered a situation like this.  It feels
deeply off. During a recent call, HR shouted at me and made
inappropriate references to my gender, skin color, and the size of my
company—calling it a “one-man band.” These remarks were not only
irrelevant but entirely unwarranted, especially given that I was
simply seeking feedback on candidates.

While I’m not personally offended by such references in isolation,
their use in this context raises serious questions about
professionalism and bias. It seems symptomatic of a wider trend:
employers ghosting recruiters, avoiding feedback, and opting to post
roles on platforms like LinkedIn to bypass external support.

This isn’t just about one contract—it’s about the erosion of
professional standards in recruitment.

I believe this situation gives rise to an equitable estoppel claim.
The company’s consistent pattern of engaging my services without
formal HR requests created a reasonable expectation that such conduct
would continue. I relied on that expectation in good faith, investing
time and resources accordingly. It would be inequitable for them to
now deny that conduct and enforce restrictive terms that were never
previously applied.