New hire terminated before first day after employer, candidate clash over start date

A person who accepted a job said they were fired before they ever reported for work after a confusion over the start date, according to a Reddit post highlighted by the New York Post.

The new hire posted a screenshot of an email they received that stated: “This email is to inform you that your employment has been terminated from [redacted] effective 09/02/2025 due to not reporting to work on the first day.” The poster said they had been given a different start date earlier and were surprised to receive the termination notice.

The incident prompted discussion on r/jobs, where commenters and a self-identified HR professional offered context on how start dates are typically handled. The HR commenter said offer letters are often “a proposed date and not a set date,” and that a separate confirmation email can reflect changes required by background checks or other preemployment steps. That commenter also advised candidates to ask for confirmation when a communicated start date differs substantially from the offer.

Other users pointed to apparent internal errors in the employer’s message: one observer noted the calendar mismatch in the termination email, writing that although the message listed the 2nd as the first day, the 22nd would have fallen on a Monday while the 2nd was a Tuesday, and added, “They messed up the date and day of week.” Several commenters criticized the employer’s response as abrupt, saying a phone call or follow-up attempt would have been a reasonable step before issuing a termination.

A separate anecdote circulated in the thread about a different former employee who began work on the intended start date but was let go after about three months. That worker said the employer told her her 90 days were up and that she was not a good fit, and she complained of receiving little feedback during her probationary period, saying there were times when she attempted to reach out and did not receive a reply.

Employment specialists say clear, timely communication is central to onboarding, particularly when background checks, drug tests or other contingencies can move a start date. In practice, offer letters sometimes include language that frames a start date as tentative, and companies will follow up with a formal start-date confirmation once checks are complete. When the two communications diverge, both employers and candidates can be left with conflicting expectations.

The episode underscores friction that can arise in recruiting as companies try to move quickly and candidates seek certainty in a cooling labor market. Reddit users responding to the thread suggested the person who received the termination notice should request documentation of the employer’s communications and consider whether a formal appeal or written complaint is warranted. Others said the lack of an attempt to contact the candidate before terminating suggested poor internal processes and advised the poster that they might be better off working elsewhere.

The New York Post reported the Reddit thread; the employer in the post did not provide a public statement to clarify the timeline or the basis for sending the termination email. The case highlights the importance of explicit confirmation and mutual acknowledgment of start dates as part of the onboarding process, and it illustrates how administrative breakdowns can quickly escalate to job-loss claims on both sides of the hiring table.

Employers and candidates navigating offers can reduce such disputes by documenting each change in writing, confirming receipt of start-date communications, and establishing a clear line of contact in the days leading up to a first scheduled workday. In this instance, the disagreement over dates and the employer’s swift termination drew attention on social media to a broader human-resources challenge: ensuring operational accuracy and leaving room for direct communication before taking irreversible employment actions.