A client I was working with was offered a CEO position a few states away from their current home. Upon final visit to the new city the client told the search committee that their spouse and children would not be moving with them right away because the spouse, who had been fully remote, was going to be required to work a hybrid mix of 2-3 days in the office.

A client I was working with was offered a CEO position a few states away from their current home. Upon final visit to the new city the client told the search committee that their spouse and children would not be moving with them right away because the spouse, who had been fully remote, was going to be required to work a hybrid mix of 2-3 days in the office.

The client got an offer letter and it stipulated that the entire family must move to the new city by the start of the school year and the children must be enrolled in a local school.

I have never ever come across this. In fact I think it borders on illegal. Any thoughts on this? I’m perplexed!

(the new city it a flight away from their old home)

Why women love us:

  • Daily articles on career topics
  • Jobs at companies dedicated to hiring more women
  • Advice and support from an authentic community
  • Events that help you level up in your career
  • Free membership, always

Share your insight

Join an authentic community that helps women support each other at work. Share your professional experience or ask for advice — you can even post anonymously.

47 Comments

Join the conversation
  1. Anonymous

    “Stay in your lane? “ maybe it’s just curiosity as to which way the wind is blowing in the world right now. Looking to see if if it’s a trend. Maybe just curiosity. It’s OK to ask questions.

  2. Anonymous

    Yes, it is fine to ask questions. Especially if this could be a situation someone else on here is facing. Thank you for sharing this. It makes one think when offers are made, how much one must give up in making personal decisions for their families. I mentioned above, no company should own the candidate's children's education. Maybe the person isn't moving their family right away. And what matters is the person they are hiring is going to work for them, not their kids or their spouse. Fishy situation to me. But that's my 2 cents. Thanks for sharing this odd offer.

  3. Anonymous

    It sounds like you have a really good relationship with your previous client, which is great. First of all, the person is hired, not their family. If your colleague, the former client, confided in you, that means a lot. If it were me, and I was offered an opportunity, I would not sign anything that agreed to "own" my children's education. How does this company that made the offer know his children are not home schooled? Seems fishy to me.

  4. E C

    I went to work for a university who pressured me to relocate my family about 2 hours away. I told them we would once my spouse found a job and we found a house. Before that happened, they laid off 20% of their staff, including me (least senior). Because we hadn't completely relocated, we had the option for me to return home and job hunt, while my spouse remained employed in a very good job. Never give an employer control over your personal or family life.

  5. Anonymous

    Isn’t this discrimination based on family status? Family status is one of the 8 protected classes.

  6. Anonymous

    Omg, here we go again screaming discrimination! It’s a requirement of the position. If it’s not a fit for the candidate…move on!

  7. Kate Hopkins

    An employment lawyer could answer the legal question. But I understand why the company may feel like the new CEO leaving family behind - even temporarily - signals that they may not be completely committed to their new position. So this is their solution. Your client has the option to negotiate - for example , if they want to require that fast a family move, then ask for lost wages for the spouse, etc.

  8. Wanda Shaw

    Never heard of a company detailing.a relocation mandate like this. There’s got to be a hidden reason, especially if the company is paying for all costs including housing and other living expenses.

  9. Anonymous

    But making an offer contingent upon an activity that the family must do… that involves family status. This seems fishy.

  10. Anonymous

    Not illegal, but it's their requirement for them to officially move to the area of their role. MANY people say they'll move and don't, perhaps they're heading off prior issues BUT as a CEO, come on, you can't commit to that? How invested are you going to be in being successful and committed? If what they need doesn't work for your client, then they shouldn't accept, this wasn't their next venture and move on. Why complain about a requirement if you can't meet it. Move.On.

  11. Beverly Molnar

    The question is why are they requiring it. Whether or not the spouse and family relocate has no bearing on whether and how well the CEO can perform his or her job. Lots of folks in high-level positions have commuter marriages.

  12. Anonymous

    They’re requiring it because they can.

  13. Beverly Molnar

    Thanks, but it sounds to me like you just want to argue and don’t really have anything substantial to add to the discussion.

  14. Anonymous

    Looks like you’re in a pissing contest, too, Bev.

  15. Beverly Molnar

    And what’s with the “Bev”? That’s not how my name is listed. You must be someone I know personally for you to address me so informally, hmmm, Anonymous?

  16. J

    Agreed. Frankly it's none of the employer's business how the employee (CEO or not) and his family choose to manage their own personal situation. As long as their decision for the family to relocate later doesn't present a financial hardship for the company, then it's not the employer's business on when the family moves or if the children are enrolled in a local school. What if they decide to homeschool their children? If for some reason the CEO's family decision raises red flags for them, then they should go with a different candidate. Conversely, if this stipulation raises a red flag for the CEO, then he should walk away.

  17. Anonymous

    It's their job description and if they can't do that job as they've required they should move on. What's next? Come on people, if the job doesn't fit for you and yours right now, who are you to dictate how a company should fill this role? If you get in there, and help the company to stabilize, have a clear vision of moving forward, and see efforts move the needle in the right direction then THEN see about making some changes for roles. Don't act like you have the job BEFORE you have the job. What in the world!!

  18. GirlBossanova934974

    You are completely incorrect. A CEO is employed by an EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT in 99,99% of the cases. You have been paying attention to too many talk shows. The terms of employment for the CEO are bound by the EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. Things such as severance and that sort of thing are governed by the EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. If the employment contract states that the CEO must be paid XYZ upon the company ending the relationship, that's it. NON NEGOTIABLE! I have been involved in 2 unlawful termination cases and spent several years in courts. In the last case, I wasn't the only one going after the company. My boss, the former CFO, had an employment contract with the company. He was due $50,000 if the company decided to end the arrangement. Try as hard as he wanted to, the company owner couldn't get out of the $50K due to his former CFO. We were in AT WILL state but who cares? If you don't believe me, read this citation. https://tinyurl.com/w98n4357 Over the years, I have seen several company officers walk out with big payouts due to their employment contracts. Half the time, the company tried to get out of the deal but the court or their lawyers told them..........NO DEAL! PAY the former employee.

  19. Beverly Molnar

    Good grief, yes. More than one. Do some research. The dean of the unit where I work had a commuter marriage for months after she accepted the position, until her spouse was able to find a position here as well.

  20. Beverly Molnar

    Are you married? Do you have a family? Do they have any bearing on how well you do your job? You might even do it better without them around. I’m not saying that’s the ideal situation (it wouldn’t be for me), I’m just saying plenty of people make it work.

  21. Beverly Molnar

    I get the feeling that a majority of these comments are being posted by a single “Anonymous” who is using the gratuitous veil of anonymity to be combative and rude and not add a single salient point to the discussion. But maybe that’s just me.

  22. Anonymous

    How do you know this person wouldn't do his best? Every family is different and everyone's personal situation is different. People are allowed to make their own decisions based on what's best for them and their family, and that doesn't have anything to do with how they'll do as a top executive of a company. Most executives like that are always traveling anyway at the behest of their company...which takes them away from their family... So it shouldn't matter whether his family moves at the same time as him or not.

  23. Beverly Molnar

    Well said.

  24. maria rose

    Dear anonymous commenter the only assumption I made was that this is a 2 income earning family so the decision to relocate has to be a joint agreement between the 2 earners —Would you up and relocate without any possible employment—not every type of WFH jobs are available in every single area ( USA/ World) —in today’s job market there are more jobs that don’t require in person work and apparently the spouse in this situation may have already asked for any job transfer to the new job location where their spouse was offered the new position which means that one of the spouse would have to look for work to continue working—Ask yourself if you as the spouse that would be losing their current job and has to start all over again looking for employment. And they would not have the support system in the new location, Employment laws for WFH /Or hybrid employment differ per location. If anything you implied a gender to the spouse —

  25. Anonymous

    ”wife.” Read what you wrote.

  26. Bosslady121653

    The new job requirements sound like they border on infringement of personal freedom. I can understand the employer's concern however, I would check with an employment attorney. This sounds like new territory to stretch their control on employees.

  27. Anonymous

    Several years ago (2009) my employer hired the spouse of an individual who was hired as a CEO of a local company who had similar requirements.

    She proved to be a bad hire for us as she only accepted the position to satisfy the requirements of her husband’s relocation package. Only lasted about 6 months in her role and resigned

  28. Beverly Molnar

    I’m not talking about disengagement, for crying out loud. I’m talking about a temporary situation where one person relocates and their family follows later. People do it ALL THE FREAKIN’ TIME. For God’s sake, that’s what Melania Trump did … she waited until her son’s school year was finished before joining her spouse in his new location as CEO of the country (not that I think Trump is a good example of how to do anything). You are comparing apples and oranges and being rather silly in your relentless stubbornness about it.

  29. Beverly Molnar

    No one said anything about “permanent” except you.

  30. Beverly Molnar

    Why a CEO? What difference does it make? I said “people in high-level positions.” You’re the one who keeps getting hung up on silly details. Do your own research.

  31. Beverly Molnar

    Wow. Are you the same person who told someone to “stay in their lane”? Yeah, I thought so. I am happily married for 30 years and lived with my spouse the entire time. That said, my personal and work lives are completely separate. Unless you own a business with your spouse, most others are the same. Not everyone thinks the same way you do. Adjust and accept that.

  32. Beverly Molnar

    Yes. Not sure what that has to do with anything. I’m not the one arguing my spouse has to be attached to my hip for me to perform my job well.

  33. Beverly Molnar

    No, I think it’s the same “anonymous” person making all the rude and ridiculous statements. At least I’m willing to attach my name to mine. It says a lot when a person hides behind a cloak of anonymity for no good reason.

  34. Beverly Molnar

    I am not advocating anything. I am not breaking anything up. God, how old are you, 12? I wish we had laughing emojis here.

  35. Beverly Molnar

    She/he should delete all their other hateful comments as well.

  36. Beverly Molnar

    And what’s with the “Bev”? That’s not how my name is listed. You must be someone I know personally for you to address me so informally, hmmm, Anonymous?

  37. Anonymous

    Bev IS angry at everyone on this thread!

  38. maria rose

    At least I don’t hide behind the anonymous tag and if I could update my comment to the more “acceptable “ terminology I would. But I still hold the opinion that any core partnership that also includes children needs to have a basic idea of expected change if considering relocation. If just the time factor is too limiting it could be negotiated. The job wanted the person offered the position to be in city by that time period.

  39. Anonymous

    Have they asked follow-up questions? That would likely give them a better understanding of the reasoning behind it. I would ask things like what if my kids attend boarding school? For example.

  40. Anonymous

    I would contact an attorney that seems odd …

  41. Anonymous

    I've not heard of something similar previously nor am I sure of its legality. That said, I can kind of see the POV of the potential employer. Several years ago (pre-COVID), the company I worked for was HQ'd in the Midwest. We paid a pretty significant (6 figure) amount of money to relo an executive and her family from the west coast. It wasn't long at all before the relo failed, one of the kids could not adjust. I don't think there was a clawback in place. Lots of money lost.

  42. Anonymous

    Actually, clawbacks were a standard part of our relo agreements (domestic and international), assignments (domestic and international), sign-on bonuses, etc. I'm not sure why one was not done for this particular executive.

  43. maria rose

    Dear anonymous replies—congrats on being in that high level position of which there are too few women—but you are implying that because I used the wrong word to describe partnership—Wife —means I was deliberately going offensive and off the main discussion point — so call me off tone — but to be so negative to a fellow woman who fought quite hard for every penny they earned for one mistake is a bit harsh. Perhaps you can explain how I can go back and correct and remove those words without removing the entire comment. But if I remove my comment you and all the Anonymous negative comments have shown your bias quite clearly and are not helping the post discussion in any meaningful way. I hope you realize that.

  44. Anonymous

    I'm not sure who you are quoting as I didn't say "pretty sure in my first response nor my second question. But I am in HR and when I was at this company, I owned most all of the relos (with one or two exceptions, including this one).

  45. LORI-ANN BURLINGAME

    After reading you posting, I am somewhat confused. However, having worked with many senior executives and their spouses -- here is my comment.

    It makes good business sense to have the family move together and have the children enrolled in their new school. This will prevent any delay on the part of your client and/or their spouse or family to make the transition.

    Your client's new employer, should they accept the job, wants to pay for one move and not end-up supporting two separate households.

    My compliments to the hiring company for using good business judgment.

  46. Anonymous

    Because occasionally, executive levels or other 'special' cases were handled individually. It's always lessons learned for them after the fact.

  47. Jennifer Tanner

    IANAL but it seems like it would border on discriminatory behavior since it would not apply to someone who was not married or who didn't have kids. It would really depend on the state laws, since being a parent and being married are not federally protected classes but some states and federal positions (ironically) have parental protections, familial status, and marital status protections codified.

    I think if nothing else it certainly is not a good look for this company trying to strong-arm their candidate. At the point you're looking at this kind of employment law before even accepting the offer, the vibe already feels way off for changing states and uprooting the entire family to me.

Browse recent posts

Fairygodboss VIP
Achieve your career goals.
Be part of the largest online career community for women to find jobs, advice, and support — for free.
Fairygodboss members