5 Possible Ways Your Boss Might React When You Resign (and How to Know Which to Expect)

I have a super long commute and an open office so getting to work from home is essential but I had never worked from home. Anon, at least your manager is reasonable by telling you to work from home before commuting to another location. This is an important point: Do you have a good relationship with your manager? You don't ask people, when you don't want them to pick the answer that suits them.

If they have an employee seeking a reasonable accommodation to work from home and they want to deny that employee, it will be difficult to say it is an unreasonable accommodation if they have let a non-disabled employee work from home.

#2: Your productivity will increase

The best way to prepare for this reaction is to simply know your stance ahead of time by determining if you would even consider a counteroffer.

Again, you may receive this response if you have specialized knowledge that would make it difficult or time-consuming to hire your replacement—or if it would be helpful for you to be actively involved in that search. Otherwise, look to the history of your company. If you see a pattern of upper management refusing to let the team members work out their notice, you can likely expect the same. Also think about your relationship with your manager.

If so, you may be asked to cut your two weeks short. Maybe you continually challenged his ideas, and he took that as a sign of disrespect. Or, maybe she always made unreasonable demands, and you were never able to see eye-to-eye on your to-do list. Or perhaps his moods were completely unpredictable.

In this case, all you can do is politely deliver your resignation, then strive to make the transition as easy as possible for your team. The best-case scenario—and honestly, the most common reaction—is that your boss will accept your resignation with understanding and sincere congratulations.

Do you have a good relationship with your manager? Is he or she relatively reasonable? Do you have regular one-on-ones where you talk about your career goals and growth? This one is easy.

Let me know what I can do to make the transition easier. Are you always going to get reaction number five? Then, you can breathe a sign of relief and start looking forward to starting your new position. Photo of talking to boss courtesy of Shutterstock. Just something to consider. That bothered me as well. Getting sick more often does not make you a worse employee than the people who are sick less often. We are given 5 paid sick days every year.

Lastly the company might value covering themselves from other lawsuits over your contributions. One of my friends actually believed that if he let employees sell Girl Scout cookies in the office, he had to let anyone sell anything they wanted in the office, for example sex toys, because otherwise it would be discrimination.

OP, the HR concerns might not totally be bunk. This actually leads me to suggest that OP go directly to HR and ask. Z plays in a little as well. Yes, but the reason the company might have declined the first employee to ask could be tied to the whole tax question — an employee in the state can create nexus with the state so that the company now owe corporate income tax there. Under those circumstances, then allowing another employee to do it — especially in a state with a corporate income tax — because even more problematic.

Many corporations purposely locate their head offices in areas where the tax laws are low, even if the bulk of their offices or employees are in other places. It might not be and OP would eventually have to find a new job, though. At OldJob, there were some people who wanted to work from home and had requested it.

The requests were denied because: Sometimes the folks who should be shown the door are given the raises and promotions. I think the point was just that employers make all sorts of decisions based on performance — raises, promotions, etc. Part of the reason is the amount of money is often not known by employees.

If pay was as easily observable as being able to work from home or scheduling, I think there would be pressure from employees for less disparities in that domain too. I wish my manager would learn this. I wish I was kidding. I knew there had to be someone out there who was doing this with raises too: The limits of bad management know no bounds.

One other thing is ADA issues. If they have an employee seeking a reasonable accommodation to work from home and they want to deny that employee, it will be difficult to say it is an unreasonable accommodation if they have let a non-disabled employee work from home.

Well, yes, they can and some do. HR is probably being overly cautious here. And everyone belongs to a protected class. No EEOC, no lawsuit. Partiality and discrimination are not mutually exclusive.

And suing is not necessarily that hard. Anyone can file a lawsuit. I feel like for some people they think mentioning getting a lawyer will scare their employer into doing the right thing. Why would you want to work for an employer that is pissed at you? One thing for you and your boss to consider when making a further case: Were they also already WFH employees like you are?

Yes, I agree — pretty much no case. But on the off chance OP could find a lawyer to take it, I suspect that the company lawyers would drag it out forever, not letting it actually hit a courtroom.

Although I suppose it might be cheaper for everyone to have a judge throw it out, who knows. No lawyer worth their salt would take this case. Certainly not on contingency because, as AAM said, there is no case.

They would charge the LW regardless if they won or lost. This was my other thought while reading this letter. Force in relationships is a tough thing. Sometimes you win the battle, but you lose war—there is never the same goodwill going forward. You cannot force them to bend to your will. Hiring a lawyer to make a point makes me picture a tantrum from a kid that didnt get what they wanted. Find a new job in AZ. No one wants THAT person as an employee.

So I think its a perfectly valid term. TBH, I can understand where someone is seeing the entitlement. The OP is a great employee and is engaged and will be relocating. She is trying to make her current job work around her life changes. I totally believe in flexibility, if possible, for great employees I think in some cases it creates great employees.

The OP seemed very confident in her abilities and was rationally explaining why she deserved an extra perk—much how I would approach it if I, personally, was asking for a raise.

Her arguments were well thought out and if she is truly a high performer, it is a solid case for this perk of working from home tax implications aside for the moment.

Definitely do not do that, but keep with your original argument of how much value you bring to the company and keep an open mind about their challenge back.

In that case, I agree, just not with the word choice. She seems ignorant of the process of putting something like this in writing and bringing a lawyer into the mess. Bringing in a lawyer is the wrong thing to do here, but I think folks need to quit bristling over the idea of someone wondering if they need to legally protect themselves.

You never need a lawyer until you do, and when you do you need one in a huge way. Ok, but how reasonable is it to expect a company to let you work remotely from another state just because you are moving? And when they brought up concerns, she immediately dismissed them and started asking how to force them into doing what she wanted anyway. She is moving to another state.

She should be looking for a local job instead of trying to sue them. If she were my employee and I caught wind of her considering suing to force me into what she wants, she would be gone. I know a lot of managers that act bummed when crappy employees give their notice.

They are glad to see them go, but cant show it. This is barely a change to the existing arrangement. What do you think you would get out of filing a suit against them? Would you sue them to get to keep your job? Set a precedent that other people at other companies are not allowed to discriminate against people movie? It is always important to consider what you expect the outcome of a lawsuit to be.

You may depending on your state be eligible for unemployment when you quit if you are moving with a spouse. For all the OP knows there could have been an EEOC complaint from one of the employees that was denied and this would simply bring it up again, perhaps with a stronger case. This is a good point. Also worth noting that the EEOC looks at actual impact rather than reason for the impact. If your compensation strategy results in white males receiving statistically significant higher salaries than females and non-whites, then you are breaking the law.

As an example, the high school you attended ends up having a strong impact on your career earnings at my employer. Applicants from certain high schools end up getting higher starting salaries mostly because their hiring managers attended the same high school. Since all employees receive equal raises, hiring salary ends up strongly dictating your lifetime earnings.

So, even though none of the original policies are meant to be illegal discrimination equal raises, influence of high school on starting pay , there is a strong disparate impact because high school correlates so strongly with race, ethnicity, gender, and religion.

End result of problems like this, companies get leery of treating employees differently without clear connections to essential work functions. This employee is not only high performing but she has proven that she can work effectively remotely, which benefits the employer in this case.

Retaining a high performing employee who meets fairly strict legal criteria is definitely a sound business decision. Also, it is not entirely true that impact is all that counts. Yes, it is much more complicated than just disparate impact.

But if an employer is also struggling this badly to explain their fear of litigation, they are probably going to struggle badly to explain their bona fide operating qualification that results in the disparate impact too.

And that leads to even more fear of litigation. Just go to HR directly and ask them to clarify, and gently make your case. Using your director or CEO as an intermediary makes this feel drama-ish since they already asked, and so your question is no about the policy itself. I understand your concern, but is there another way to look at this? While I understand the frustration, there seems to be a definite sense of entitlement going on.

That was your choice. This is their choice. If 2 people who asked to do that before were some other minority, and then you as a white woman not assuming, just putting a possibility out there then get to do that, it could look really bad on their end, especially if other people are aware of this.

In essence, HR made their choice. But threatening them with legal action will probably remove him from your corner as well.

The thing is, no matter what HR explains to the OP, we really do not know the whole story. It could also be them just being overly cautious, and while annoying, it is not unusual.

I think good CEO also understands that he might not be the best person to make every decision in an organization.

I was thinking about this yesterday, when we were doing a simulated Incident Management exercise. The actual CEO was participating in the exercise, and he deferred most of the decisions to people who knew more about the topic at hand than he did.

Costing or procurement question? Ask the Finance people. Want to know if we have enough staff on the ground? In this case, the expert is HR, who probably knows more about tax laws and managing remote employees than the CEO. I was assuming that since the company has had her on for 2 years and allowed her to work almost entirely from home, they trust her and like her performance, attendance or raises notwithstanding.

HR may not want to deal with the potential fall out not legal fall out but morale fall out from other employees who would also like to work remotely. Perhaps others have also asked and been denied? Some times we have this risk aversion to the employee relations issues that might arise. Not stemming from a legal perspective. What is that going to do to your reputation with the company and future promotion potential?

What about your relationships with other co-workers? I mean, I hate to go off in this direction but I wonder if that was the reason behind not allowing any employee to work in another state. With an employee working full time in the state, the company has nexus with Arizona for corporate income tax purposes.

Treating your staff like idiots or like they are not capable of dealing with the truth is not a good way to manage. Not a good way to operate. Thank you for this. At the part of the letter when the OP was making her case with these examples I was rolling my eyes into Sunday.

Thank you for that. That can be a tough pill to swallow for employees, esp at similar performance levels, when they see others getting to do it and I can definitely see employees looking elsewhere over it. If someone is traveling for work, the company is required to cover travel expenses and meals. I took working remotely 4 out of 5 days a week meaning the OP was still available to come to meetings in person. Her boss says she can move and they can just do the meetings via teleconference.

The OP uses some dare I say silly examples to make her case — not asking for a raise, never being sick, colleagues with company credit cards expensing their lunch while traveling.

I used to work at a place that seriously frowned on not only work-out-of-state but even work-from-home, despite the work being easily remote work. When I left to move out of state, they offered unsolicited to allow me to continue working out of state instead of looking for another job.

I was seriously shocked by this offer! With me working out of state, it would have been very difficult for management to keep up morale while continuing to disallow people from working at home even just one or two days a week. And he then deducts the car expenses and meals and gifts to customers etc. My home office is in Mississippi and my work location is a construction site in Pennsylvania.

Plus we have a guy whose permanent residence is in Kentucky Working for a company based out of Mississippi in Pennsylvania. We have employees with roughly 60 completely unique combinations of state residency and state worked in. Differing labor laws alone can be a reason not to do it.

Good luck in AZ. Sure, it could happen, but the likelihood means the level of consideration it should be given is minimal. What if the husband gets a job offer in NM? What if she hates Arizona and they make the mutual decision to come back to NM? The former is paranoid; the latter is good sense. It could be just as likely that she starts working for a company in AZ that merges with her present company — you just never know. Later I was able to say I told you so. He was long gone and there she was.

You clearly have a good relationship with the CEO and other higher-ups, are currently working at a large company in New Mexico, and could potentially have to job search in Arizona.

I had a backup option through this route when I asked to work remotely out of state also because of a spouse and it really helped take the anxiety and the feeling that it has to happen out of the process. But having contacts and strong recommendations is valuable to a job search in any industry.

It sounds like the OP is a hard worker and she likes her job and her company. It seems her manager will be sad to see her go. I say, go out on a strong note. Ensure you have an awesome reference in your manager — that when you start job searching in your new city, hiring managers can call old manager and the old manager will have fantastic things to say.

Maybe she can give you some leads as well, or knows someone that can. Make sure you leave lots of documentation for the new person. This sometimes means closing some doors. Others will open for you. See all of this as a blessing and not a loss. Yes, every word of this. Also, to the OP: They paid you to work there. Your acting like they need to continue employing you when you are moving away is a bit insane.

I went through this same exact issue— 2 years at a company, great performance, and my job was something that could have been done from anywhere. I asked about working remotely when my husband and I moved for his job, they said no and I let it go. Get married, move and look for a new job.

This seems as good a place for my comment as any! I think it is kind of the minimum anywhere to not look like a job hopper. Of course, there are some fields where that is different international development in the field, academia prior to a tenure-track position, etc. But, for the normal office job?

how can I get my boss to let me work from home?

The reasons you want to work from home might actually be travel flexibility or more time with the kids, but you don't necessarily want to give those to your boss. A reader writes: I'd like your advice on talking points when asking my boss about the ability to work from home once a week. I work on a very small team at. A reader writes: I'd like your advice on talking points when asking my boss about the ability to work from home once a week. how can I get my boss to let me work from home? by Alison. It almost goes without saying, but the best way to convince your company to let you work from home periodically is to really do great work when you have the opportunity to work from home.