Vijay’s predicament is increasingly common in corporate corridors. A competent professional once valued by his employer, he now finds himself permanently barred from rejoining—not for misconduct or consistent underperformance, but due to an outdated policy or perhaps a managerial grudge. His career trajectory has been quietly but significantly altered by his appearance on a ‘do-not-rehire’ (DNH) list.
The phenomenon gained wider attention when Meta’s extensive layoffs reportedly resulted in many former employees being placed on internal blacklists. Some who had received excellent performance reviews found themselves inexplicably marked as ineligible for rehire, raising thorny questions about corporate practices that indiscriminately close doors to talent.
These corporate blacklists operate in an ethical grey zone between prudent risk management and questionable gatekeeping. As labour markets tighten and skills shortages persist across industries, companies face a stark question: is maintaining rigid DNH policies truly in their best interest?
“A clear distinction must be made between voluntary and involuntary attrition to ensure that employees who left under legitimate circumstances are not unfairly penalised.”
Praveer Priyadarshi, senior HR leader
“A clear distinction must be made between voluntary and involuntary attrition to ensure that employees who left under legitimate circumstances are not unfairly penalised,” says Praveer Priyadarshi, a senior HR leader. While such lists typically include employees dismissed for poor performance or disciplinary infractions, Priyadarshi argues that redundancies resulting from cost-cutting or restructuring should not automatically trigger rehiring bans.
As a process, most companies assign reasons for leaving when employees exit. This is usually assigned by the immediate supervisor. Many factors impact it for example the performance as well as conduct of the employee within the team. However, “do not hire” shows that the employee would not be welcomed back. “Not only it closes doors within the same company what makes it powerful is if this feedback is conveyed to future employer as part of background check,” shares Sharad Verma, CHRO, Iris Software.
The practice appears particularly problematic when employees are encouraged to resign rather than face formal termination—a common corporate approach that ostensibly protects the individual’s employment record. Despite this seeming concession, many find themselves quietly marked as ‘not suitable for rehire’ in internal systems. This administrative sleight of hand creates a particularly insidious form of career obstruction: the blacklisted employee may never know they carry this invisible mark.
“Such lists often stem from management arrogance and bias rather than objective assessment.”
Ravi Mishra, head HR, BITS Pilani
Ravi Mishra, head HR, BITS Pilani, is blunt in his assessment: “Such lists often stem from management arrogance and bias rather than objective assessment.” He argues forcefully that blacklists should be reserved exclusively for employees with serious disciplinary infractions, such as violations of sexual harassment policies or demonstrable breaches of integrity.
The practice may have discriminatory effects that extend beyond individual cases. Contract workers, whistleblowers and employees who resign under contentious circumstances appear particularly vulnerable to these career roadblocks. An employee who raises legitimate concerns about a senior leader’s conduct might be labelled a ‘troublemaker’, effectively silencing other potential whistleblowers. Contract workers, already operating with limited organisational visibility, may struggle to challenge unfair listings.
“Not only it closes doors within the same company what makes it powerful is if this feedback is conveyed to future employer as part of background check,”
Sharad Verma, CHRO, Iris Software
In sectors with high staff turnover, DNH lists maintained without clear parameters risk becoming instruments of corporate vengeance rather than legitimate safeguards. Mishra points to encouraging signs of evolution: one multinational conglomerate recently reduced its rehiring ban from three years to just one, acknowledging the policy’s potential to exclude valuable talent unnecessarily.
A more balanced approach would begin by clearly differentiating between redundancies and terminations. Employees laid off due to business restructuring should be categorically excluded from DNH lists—a distinction that seems obvious but is frequently overlooked in practice.
Another takeaway lesson is that careers are built on positive relationships and it is important to have good closures and to leave a legacy worth celebrating. These are foundations for developing purposeful careers.
Regular reviews of blacklists would allow HR teams to reassess individuals based on professional growth and evolving skill sets. Such audits would prevent talented professionals from being permanently excluded for temporary circumstances or early-career missteps. Companies could also establish transparent appeal processes for employees who believe they have been unfairly blacklisted.
Perhaps most fundamentally, organisations should reconsider whether their default stance towards former employees should be suspicion rather than potential opportunity. The business case for rehiring former employees—often dubbed ‘boomerang hires’—is compelling. These returnees typically require less onboarding, already understand the corporate culture and bring valuable outside perspective. Many consultancies and technology firms have recognised this value, establishing formal alumni programmes that maintain relationships with former employees.
Exit documentation represents another area ripe for reform. Current practices often leave departing employees in the dark about their rehiring status. Greater transparency would not only be fairer to individuals but might also reduce potential legal exposure for employers in jurisdictions where employment law is becoming increasingly stringent.
The most progressive organisations are shifting from rigid blacklists to more nuanced systems that distinguish between different categories of former employees. Those who left for personal reasons—relocation, family commitments or career development—should not face the same barriers as those dismissed for serious misconduct.
While maintaining some form of DNH capability remains necessary—few would argue for rehiring employees with histories of harassment or fraud—the current implementation at many companies appears needlessly broad and potentially counterproductive.
As workforce demographics shift and talent shortages persist in key sectors, organisations clinging to inflexible rehiring policies may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. A balanced approach—one that differentiates between genuine red flags and circumstantial departures—would better serve both corporate interests and basic fairness.
The treatment of former employees reveals much about an organisation’s values. Those that view past staff primarily as potential risks rather than potential assets may find that their blacklists become self-fulfilling prophecies—creating precisely the antagonistic relationships they purport to avoid, while simultaneously limiting their access to experienced talent in an increasingly competitive market.
