When an employer withdraws a job offer, does the candidate have a claim? The answer depends heavily on where the offer was made. A recent UK decision and a contrasting legal framework in the U.S. show how differently the two systems treat the same commercial moment and why employers hiring across jurisdictions need to understand the divergence.
The UK Position
In Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that withdrawing a conditional job offer without notice was a breach of contract. Because the contractual documentation contained no notice provision, the EAT was left to imply one, and ultimately awarded the claimant three months’ pay in damages.
Mr. Kankanalapalli, the would-be employee, had accepted a project manager role subject to three conditions: satisfactory references, a right-to-work check, and a six-month probationary period. The offer set out salary, benefits, hours, and duties, but was silent on notice. Weeks before the November 2022 start date, and after he had begun relocating from overseas, the employer withdrew the offer, citing a project delay.
The Employment Tribunal reasoned that the offer remained conditional, so Mr. Kankanalapalli was not entitled to damages. On his appeal, the EAT disagreed. Whether a conditional offer creates a binding contract upon acceptance depends on the document’s construction. Central to the EAT’s reasoning is the distinction between conditions that must be met before a contract can form (‘conditions precedent’) and those that operate after it begins (‘conditions subsequent’). In this case, the EAT held that because all three conditions were subsequent, the contract went into force upon acceptance, and its withdrawal without notice was a breach.
Since the contract did not mention notice, the EAT had to determine an appropriate period. Given the seniority of the role, the length of the recruitment process, and the candidate’s international relocation, it determined Mr. Kankanalapalli was entitled to three months’ worth of wages, rejecting Loesche’s argument that a shorter notice period would be reasonable during a probation period.
The U.S. Contrast
The question at the heart of Kankanalapalli is far less central in the United States. Most U.S. employment relationships are at-will: absent an agreement to the contrary, either party may end the relationship at any time, for any lawful reason, without notice. As a result, most are not governed by a contract at all, and many states extend at-will principles into the pre-hire period.
Conditional offers are common in the U.S., and like their UK counterparts, U.S. employers routinely make them contingent on background, criminal history, credit checks, reference and education verification, drug testing, and/or work-authorization clearance. Where a condition goes unmet, an at-will offer can generally be rescinded, subject to legal limits.
U.S. courts have been consistent on this point, routinely rejecting breach of contract claims built on a rescinded conditional offer. In Meka v. Deloitte LLP,[1] for instance, the court underscored that, under the at-will doctrine, an employer may rescind an offer at any time, for any or no reason, provided nothing exists that otherwise limits the employer’s right to terminate the at-will relationship. Deloitte had made a conditional offer subject to a background check; the offer stated employment would be at-will, and the plaintiff signed it and initialed each condition. After the check, Deloitte rescinded. The court dismissed the resulting claims of breach of contract and promissory estoppel, holding that rescinding an at-will employment offer is not actionable and that the plaintiff could not reasonably have relied on it.
This does not mean U.S. employers have a free hand, however. Even an at-will employment offer must be withdrawn in compliance with federal, state, and local law, including anti-discrimination statutes. New York state and New York City, for instance, typically restrict consideration of or inquiry into certain criminal histories where such information is used to deny employment and impose specific requirements on employers who revoke a conditional offer.
The Shared Lesson
Although the legal frameworks differ, the takeaway is the same. Offer letters should be drafted with precision. In the UK, that means expressly distinguishing conditions precedent from conditions subsequent, and stating the notice period, including whether it differs during probation. In the U.S., it means confirming at-will status and carefully evaluating and documenting the basis for any revocation.
Everywhere, ambiguity in an offer of employment or the decision to withdraw it creates avoidable legal exposure. For employers with cross-border operations, getting ahead of the nuances of different regimes is what keeps a routine hire from becoming an unnecessary headache.
[1] 25-cv-3547 (AKH), 2025 WL 3761874 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2025)
