illegal interview questions

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
BaiAilian2013
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby BaiAilian2013 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:44 pm

Tom Joad wrote:That seems reasonable. Still kind of sucks for the employers if they want greater clarification though. It seems that applicants could likely intentionally or unintentionally lie about their availability. Knowing an applicant's social and family obligations could give employers more information that they can use to more accurately access applicants.

Tom Joad wrote:If I was a young woman I would just go into interviews outright telling employers that I am doing absolutely everything in my power not to get knocked up and make them know you know how serious you take your career. I have a lot of sympathy for employers who routinely hire women and get burned when they have kids right after starting their job.

Tom Joad wrote:Also although women have a stronger history of discrimination in this area, don't forget about men too.

Holy fucking shit, what the fuck is wrong with you?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:57 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:But if the concern is that they are making assumptions based on broad categories, what's to stop them from just broadening those categories and making the same assumptions? That leads to making all men more desirable to hire (relating to this one aspect), rather than all men and some women.


Are you serious? The concern isn't that employers will discriminate against the entire gender because they're not allowed to distinguish those interested in working 24/7 from those who'd like to have family and kids. The concern is that employers shouldn't get to weed out the latter because meritorious women who happen to be interested in family and kids don't deserve to be turned away on the basis of sexist assumption that they'll drop the job as soon as they start birthing babies.

I'm amazed this apparently needs explaining.

Yeah, I realize what your concern is. That was plenty clear. But it should also be clear that there isn't really anything preventing what I described. I'm amazed that apparently needs explaining. :roll:

(Seriously, have you ever disagreed with someone's post and not attacked the poster's intelligence in your response?)


I don't think you're unintelligent, thus why it's mind-boggling that you're making the argument you're making. Assuming you're right and there isn't any preventing of the discrimination - a point on which you may be correct - why in the God's name would we at least not go with the case scenario in which job applicants don't get slapped with invasive, sexist questions in the middle of their interviews? How does discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring beat no discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring? Why would you advocate for a system in which employers get to ask about marital status and where women are reduced to competing to see which one can disclaim interest in having babies most vigorously in order to get the job? Seriously?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:59 pm

BaiAilian2013 wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:That seems reasonable. Still kind of sucks for the employers if they want greater clarification though. It seems that applicants could likely intentionally or unintentionally lie about their availability. Knowing an applicant's social and family obligations could give employers more information that they can use to more accurately access applicants.

Tom Joad wrote:If I was a young woman I would just go into interviews outright telling employers that I am doing absolutely everything in my power not to get knocked up and make them know you know how serious you take your career. I have a lot of sympathy for employers who routinely hire women and get burned when they have kids right after starting their job.

Tom Joad wrote:Also although women have a stronger history of discrimination in this area, don't forget about men too.

Holy fucking shit, what the fuck is wrong with you?


It all makes sense when you realize that he operates on the assumption that not hiring women because they may have, or want to have, families is totally cool.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dingbat » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:01 pm

Not sure if Tom Joad is trolling

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby birdlaw117 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:03 pm

dresden doll wrote:I don't think you're unintelligent, thus why it's mind-boggling that you're making the argument you're making. Assuming you're right and there isn't any preventing of the discrimination - a point on which you may be correct - why in the God's name would we at least not go with the case scenario in which job applicants don't get slapped with invasive, sexist questions in the middle of their interviews? How does discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring beat no discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring? Why would you advocate for a system in which employers get to ask about marital status and where women are reduced to competing to see which one can disclaim interest in having babies most vigorously in order to get the job? Seriously?

I don't disagree with this. That's why my comment was "a strong argument can be made...," rather than "no, this is what would happen." And like I said, I'm not even sure in the scenario I mentioned that it would actually change the conclusion. I just figured it was worth mentioning since seemingly nobody had said something along those lines.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:07 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:I don't think you're unintelligent, thus why it's mind-boggling that you're making the argument you're making. Assuming you're right and there isn't any preventing of the discrimination - a point on which you may be correct - why in the God's name would we at least not go with the case scenario in which job applicants don't get slapped with invasive, sexist questions in the middle of their interviews? How does discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring beat no discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring? Why would you advocate for a system in which employers get to ask about marital status and where women are reduced to competing to see which one can disclaim interest in having babies most vigorously in order to get the job? Seriously?

I don't disagree with this. That's why my comment was "a strong argument can be made...," rather than "no, this is what would happen." And like I said, I'm not even sure in the scenario I mentioned that it would actually change the conclusion. I just figured it was worth mentioning since seemingly nobody had said something along those lines.


Okay, fair. As a point of clarification, I was chiefly irritated by TJ's apparent marveling at the concept of not permitting employers to ask questions about one's marital status. IMO it ought to be blindingly obvious, at the very least, that there are serious reasons for such a rule; whether you think it's the optimal policy is a separate question.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby birdlaw117 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:09 pm

dresden doll wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:I don't think you're unintelligent, thus why it's mind-boggling that you're making the argument you're making. Assuming you're right and there isn't any preventing of the discrimination - a point on which you may be correct - why in the God's name would we at least not go with the case scenario in which job applicants don't get slapped with invasive, sexist questions in the middle of their interviews? How does discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring beat no discriminatory questions + discriminatory hiring? Why would you advocate for a system in which employers get to ask about marital status and where women are reduced to competing to see which one can disclaim interest in having babies most vigorously in order to get the job? Seriously?

I don't disagree with this. That's why my comment was "a strong argument can be made...," rather than "no, this is what would happen." And like I said, I'm not even sure in the scenario I mentioned that it would actually change the conclusion. I just figured it was worth mentioning since seemingly nobody had said something along those lines.


Okay, fair. As a point of clarification, I was chiefly irritated by TJ's apparent marveling at the concept of not permitting employers to ask questions about one's marital status. IMO it ought to be blindingly obvious, at the very least, that there are serious reasons for such a rule; whether you think it's the optimal policy is a separate question.

Assuming we care more about the employee than the employer, it's quite obvious (and obviously we do).

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby Tom Joad » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:31 pm

dresden doll wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:Also although women have a stronger history of discrimination in this area, don't forget about men too.


What about them? As a man who went through an OCI and an SA two years ago/last year, with a wife who went through OCI last year and is going through an SA this year, I have to say it's fucking awesome to be a man. The level of advantage we have is very noticeable, even today.


Yeah, my boyfriend's firm loves the fact that he's a daddy.I'd venture to guess (as would he) that they don't love mummies nearly as much. What about men?

The same issue applies to married men because employers could be hesitant to hire them if their wife if there is a chance they could follow a breadwinning wife to a new job. Of all the list of reasons I provided about why an employer would have an interest in knowing family and social obligations of applicants, none of them applied solely to women so I don't know why this is turning strictly into a women's employment issue. The only time I brought up having kids was after maternity leave was already mentioned, so really maternity leave is the only issue that distinguishes men and women applicants and Rayiner aptly noted that maternity leave is such an insignificant amount of time in a career that intelligent employers shouldn't sweat it. If you are reading my posts with some preconceived sexist notions maybe just read them again in your head but in a calming, soothing voice.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11722
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby kalvano » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:32 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:
kalvano wrote:They aren't supposed to ask. A bigger question is why should the interviewee care? Is your family a state secret or something?

On your list of things to get pissy about at a job interview, this should be last on the list.


Agreed. I can see why it is out of line to ask, but I fail to see why it is worth getting so worked up over.



But then again, I say that as a 30-something generic white dude, not a woman, so I can understand why there might be some reservation. However, I also think there is a big difference between the paralegal making small talk and the formal interview.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:36 pm

Tom Joad wrote:The same issue applies to married men because employers could be hesitant to hire them if their wife if there is a chance they could follow a breadwinning wife to a new job. Of all the list of reasons I provided about why an employer would have an interest in knowing family and social obligations of applicants, none of them applied solely to women so I don't know why this is turning strictly into a women's employment issue. The only time I brought up having kids was after maternity leave was already mentioned, so really maternity leave is the only issue that distinguishes men and women applicants and Rayiner aptly noted that maternity leave is such an insignificant amount of time in a career that intelligent employers shouldn't sweat it. If you are reading my posts with some preconceived sexist notions maybe just read them again in your head but in a calming, soothing voice.


Or maybe you could refer to BaiAilan's post at the beginning of this page and figure out why several posters apart from me think your notions would put women in a particularly difficult position.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:39 pm

kalvano wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:
kalvano wrote:They aren't supposed to ask. A bigger question is why should the interviewee care? Is your family a state secret or something?

On your list of things to get pissy about at a job interview, this should be last on the list.


Agreed. I can see why it is out of line to ask, but I fail to see why it is worth getting so worked up over.



But then again, I say that as a 30-something generic white dude, not a woman, so I can understand why there might be some reservation. However, I also think there is a big difference between the paralegal making small talk and the formal interview.


If the paralegal was just trying to chat with the OP and inadvertently asked an inappropriate question, I agree with you that OP is overreacting. OTOH, if paralegal asked because it's the sort of a thing firm unabashedly cares about, I fully understand why OP's upset.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby r6_philly » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:45 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
Pate wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:0L here so don't kill me but I fail to why this is inappropriate?

It was a story where the HR woman was revealing her tricks on how she obtained information that was inappropriate to ask about during an interview

Why inappropriate? Someone in gov’t must have said it was.
Because some workplaces would love to not hire women with kids, assuming that the kids will take up all their time and make their work suffer. Because if it's one thing working mothers can't do, it's multitask.

I could also see an umarried man (or woman) getting pegged as possibly gay, and an actually gay man (or woman) not wanting to answer the question for obvious reasons. And some people will assume that a single young woman will be getting married soon, and quitting the job to start procreating.

Basically, anyone who's not a married guy might have some issues with the question.


But then isn't it better to tell them anyway? If the work place environment is one that doesn't like women being married or have kids, you are doing yourself a disservice by accepting a job there anyway.

Granted I am a married guy with kids, I make sure those facts get out so I can gauge the environment.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby rayiner » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:50 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:Also although women have a stronger history of discrimination in this area, don't forget about men too.


What about them? As a man who went through an OCI and an SA two years ago/last year, with a wife who went through OCI last year and is going through an SA this year, I have to say it's fucking awesome to be a man. The level of advantage we have is very noticeable, even today.


Yeah, my boyfriend's firm loves the fact that he's a daddy.I'd venture to guess (as would he) that they don't love mummies nearly as much. What about men?

The same issue applies to married men because employers could be hesitant to hire them if their wife if there is a chance they could follow a breadwinning wife to a new job. Of all the list of reasons I provided about why an employer would have an interest in knowing family and social obligations of applicants, none of them applied solely to women so I don't know why this is turning strictly into a women's employment issue. The only time I brought up having kids was after maternity leave was already mentioned, so really maternity leave is the only issue that distinguishes men and women applicants and Rayiner aptly noted that maternity leave is such an insignificant amount of time in a career that intelligent employers shouldn't sweat it. If you are reading my posts with some preconceived sexist notions maybe just read them again in your head but in a calming, soothing voice.


Are you being intentionally naive? Nobody ever assumes that a man will follow his "breadwinning wife" to a new job. It wouldn't even occur to most employers to think that.

You assume employers will act rationally, but there is absolutely no basis for believing that. Employers act phenomenally irrationally, especially when it comes to hiring. There is no semblance of rational thought, empirical validation, etc, in hiring practices. Indeed, the big law hiring model is built on a series of irrationalities.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby AreJay711 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:58 pm

I don't get what people are talking about here. If a woman already has kids then there is a greater chance that she knows the time commitment that comes with them. Really, just being a young woman --> chance of more kids not whether she is married or already has a few.

It makes more of a difference with men. If you have 2 kids and a third on the way, you probably are paying off your loans asap and dipsetting in-house.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:01 pm

r6_philly wrote:But then isn't it better to tell them anyway? If the work place environment is one that doesn't like women being married or have kids, you are doing yourself a disservice by accepting a job there anyway.

Granted I am a married guy with kids, I make sure those facts get out so I can gauge the environment.


ITE, plenty of people don't have the luxury of picking and choosing friendly work environments. A job is a job is a job.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby r6_philly » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:05 pm

dresden doll wrote:
r6_philly wrote:But then isn't it better to tell them anyway? If the work place environment is one that doesn't like women being married or have kids, you are doing yourself a disservice by accepting a job there anyway.

Granted I am a married guy with kids, I make sure those facts get out so I can gauge the environment.


ITE, plenty of people don't have the luxury of picking and choosing friendly work environments. A job is a job is a job.


First, we weren't discussing this in the context of only interview or only job. Second, I implied that one should not have a problem with the question because it just allows you to learn about the firm.

User avatar
Pate
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:29 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby Pate » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:15 pm

rayiner wrote:Are you being intentionally naive? Nobody ever assumes that a man will follow his "breadwinning wife" to a new job. It wouldn't even occur to most employers to think that.

Actually, that very topic came up in the HR interview recently televised. If the husband’s wife has a big job, it does raise concerns that the husband will follow her. IMO, if you are interviewing with HR, the job you are applying for is probably not paying high dollars (I am sure there are exceptions). Cannot recall what jobs the HR person mentioned, but she mentioned a few, I do not think lawyer was one of them (perhaps lawyers and doctors are inaccurately considered planted. . . I imagine many are). The point, the question regarding a wife, might be more ominous than it seems. Perhaps, “she is a housewife who loves the kitchen” should be your pat answer!

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:24 pm

r6_philly wrote:First, we weren't discussing this in the context of only interview or only job. Second, I implied that one should not have a problem with the question because it just allows you to learn about the firm.


First, if the interview goes wrong, you likely won't get the job, so your distinction seems pretty meaningless. Second, those with severely limited options worry about being acceptable to potential employers more than they worry about the employer being acceptable to them.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby r6_philly » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 pm

dresden doll wrote:
r6_philly wrote:First, we weren't discussing this in the context of only interview or only job. Second, I implied that one should not have a problem with the question because it just allows you to learn about the firm.


First, if the interview goes wrong, you likely won't get the job, so your distinction seems pretty meaningless. Second, those with severely limited options worry about being acceptable to potential employers more than they worry about the employer being acceptable to them.


First, we weren't discussing this in the context of only interview or only job.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby r6_philly » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:27 pm

dresden doll wrote:
r6_philly wrote:First, we weren't discussing this in the context of only interview or only job. Second, I implied that one should not have a problem with the question because it just allows you to learn about the firm.


First, if the interview goes wrong, you likely won't get the job, so your distinction seems pretty meaningless. Second, those with severely limited options worry about being acceptable to potential employers more than they worry about the employer being acceptable to them.


Second, you are selling yourself short, which as women helps to perpetuate the inequality.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby reasonable_man » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:because of this question I don't want the internship any more. Not that I think she had any ill motive.



Wow you're just a walking lawsuit waiting to happen aren't ya? Thankfully I can weed your type out without asking any "illegal questions." If I had to deal with you at the office for even 30 seconds I'd likely think about jumping out my window.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:32 pm

All this reminds me of a kid who got super inflamed at OCI because interviewer asked about his background (innocently, from the sounds of it). The kid's a minority and I guess he was very touchy about his origins.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:33 pm

r6_philly wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
r6_philly wrote:First, we weren't discussing this in the context of only interview or only job. Second, I implied that one should not have a problem with the question because it just allows you to learn about the firm.


First, if the interview goes wrong, you likely won't get the job, so your distinction seems pretty meaningless. Second, those with severely limited options worry about being acceptable to potential employers more than they worry about the employer being acceptable to them.


Second, you are selling yourself short, which as women helps to perpetuate the inequality.


My observation wasn't gender-specific. People who aren't attractive candidates because of bad grades, bad school or the combination of the two are naturally going to worry about selling themselves to the employer more than they'll worry about the employer being acceptable to them.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby r6_philly » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:35 pm

dresden doll wrote:My observation wasn't gender-specific. People who aren't attractive candidates because of bad grades, bad school or the combination of the two are naturally going to worry about selling themselves to the employer more than they'll worry about the employer being acceptable to them.


The more you worry, the worse your chances are. Be confident and it goes a long way. Also, no one is only qualified for precisely one job. People may be qualified for no job though but then all this is moot.

LeninLunchbox
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:24 am

Re: illegal interview questions

Postby LeninLunchbox » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:11 am

rayiner wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:The same issue applies to married men because employers could be hesitant to hire them if their wife if there is a chance they could follow a breadwinning wife to a new job. Of all the list of reasons I provided about why an employer would have an interest in knowing family and social obligations of applicants, none of them applied solely to women so I don't know why this is turning strictly into a women's employment issue. The only time I brought up having kids was after maternity leave was already mentioned, so really maternity leave is the only issue that distinguishes men and women applicants and Rayiner aptly noted that maternity leave is such an insignificant amount of time in a career that intelligent employers shouldn't sweat it. If you are reading my posts with some preconceived sexist notions maybe just read them again in your head but in a calming, soothing voice.


Are you being intentionally naive? Nobody ever assumes that a man will follow his "breadwinning wife" to a new job. It wouldn't even occur to most employers to think that.


Would you like to explain how this is not a "sexist assumption?" You just assumed that virtually no hiring partner, and I'd think, by extension, no man, would ever be open minded or intelligent enough to know a man's wife might earn more than him. You just assumed all men are stubborn and sexist enough they'd never consider the possibility of accommodating their wives career needs by moving. Come to think of it, you just assumed all the people making hiring decisions would be men. Sexist.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.