'Should I even respond?': Job seeker left waiting 35 minutes, then accused of being late by CFO

A post on Reddit’s r/jobs talked about a job seeker who arrived five minutes early to a Zoom interview, waited in the waiting room for 35 minutes without being admitted, sent a follow-up email to HR, and eventually left, only to receive an email hours later from the company’s Co-Founder and CFO informing them that “meeting room is locked 5 seconds after meeting starts.”

The original poster laid out the sequence clearly. They showed up to the Zoom waiting room at 9:55 a.m. for a 10 a.m. interview. At 10:13 a.m., with no one having admitted them, they emailed HR to check they had the right link. They waited another 17 minutes. Still nothing. They left at around 10:30 a.m.

HR later responded to say there had been a family tragedy and they would still like to schedule another interview date. Then, a couple of hours after that, the CFO’s email arrived, accusing the candidate of being late.

The question the original poster brought to Reddit: “Should I even dignify this with a response?”

Photo: cairoandjuno / Reddit

What Reddit said

Many responses sent a clear, consistent message: This is a serious red flag, and how you respond should depend on how much you need this job.

One commenter suggested a diplomatic but pointed approach: “I’d forward it to whoever sent you the link, with an innocent question like ‘Is it possible the CFO was unaware I was actually on time, but the family tragedy you mentioned resulted in me not being admitted to the call?’” The beauty of this approach is that it surfaces the facts without accusation, while making the CFO’s error visible to HR.

Another commenter went further, suggesting sending the response to both HR and the CFO simultaneously: “Let the CFO know that HR screwed up, and let him look like a complete jerk. But also, yeah, I would proceed with caution because this is a big ol’ red flag.”

“Send it to both of them and say: HR lady, I’m so sorry about your family tragedy. I hope everything is ok. CFO, as HR lady knows, I was five minutes early to the interview and was not admitted due to HR lady’s unexpected conflict. I do appreciate the insight you provided into the work culture and environment at Acme Co., and wish to withdraw my name from consideration. Many thanks to you both for your time,” another comment added.

“Serious red flags, my dude. If you don’t absolutely need this position, I would be removing myself from the applicant pool, and if HR asks why, you can cite lack of communication as well as the message from the CFO,” one Redditor added.

Another asked the most practically useful question in the thread: “How desperate are you for this job, and how closely would you be working with the Co-Founder/CFO if hired?” This may be likely because the work dynamic changes significantly depending on the answer.

One commenter noted that the five-second lock rule, applied rigidly in any context, let alone to a candidate who had been sitting in a waiting room for 35 minutes, was “some epic level pedantry.”

And one final comment pointed to a less obvious consideration: “HR might appreciate knowing about his response regardless,” suggesting that even if the candidate withdraws, flagging the CFO’s email to HR might be worth doing, both for the candidate’s own record and for the information it gives HR about how their leadership communicates.

In a job market where candidates are already navigating ghosting, arbitrary cancellations, and communication that would be considered unprofessional if it came from the candidate’s side, this exchange sits near the top of the pile. The original poster’s instinct to question whether to respond at all was the right one, and whatever they decide, the interview process has already told them what they needed to know.

Read also: ‘Job market is a JOKE’: Redditor expresses frustration with the broken hiring cycle