To begin with, I had an excellent experience interviewing at the NYT. The hiring manager asked great questions and was sharp, communicative and transparent. The process started with a phone screening, and I was then interviewed by the hiring manager in person, along with another senior editor, on-site. The interviews seemed to go really well. Both editors seemed to like me and were extremely encouraging. As a next step, I was asked to complete a take-home timed test. I should have declared then that I have test anxiety, but was worried this might reflect poorly on me, even though my anxiety has never hampered my work in a professional setting. I performed well on the test, barring minor errors, but submitted it roughly 7-8 minutes late as I'd had an anxiety attack while working on it that set me back a solid 30 minutes or so (the total test time was officially set at 2 hours). When I was told that I was rejected specifically as I'd gone over the allotted time, while disappointed, I completely understood the position of the company and the hiring manager. Though I was qualified for the job, I also understood that there are numerous variables that factor into the hiring process. It was a totally fair decision, and I accepted the rejection gracefully. That wasn't what bothered me about the process. I responded to the rejection with an email thanking the editors. I also explained my anxiety situation in the email, which I had *very* carefully drafted with my therapist. I noted that it would be great if the editors could let me know if the company has mechanisms in place to help support candidates like me (ie highly qualified candidates who may suffer from anxiety or other disabilities), for future reference. I did not get a reply, even though three people received the email, including someone from HR. Many months later I sent another email, stating my keenness to keep in touch, without mentioning my anxiety or the test situation at all. Again, I got no response. (Granted, it's possible this email fell through the cracks). When it came to the actual hiring decision, I didn't expect to be treated any differently to candidates who do not suffer from similar mental health disorders that may impact their performance on timed tests. But I would expect at the very least that the NYT, as such a formidable institution, would have a mechanism in place to at least address or reply to candidates who have experienced similar situations. (I fully acknowledge that I should have declared my anxiety pre-test). My anxiety attack during the test, which was worsened by the lack of response, was actually so severe that it triggered a prolonged bout of Hyperventilation Syndrome which continued unabated for many months. On the whole, I was surprised by the turn the situation took. I would hope organisations recognise the importance of being understanding when dealing with candidates who share that they have anxiety or other mental health disorders that may be exacerbated by tests, even if it's after the hiring decision has been made.