Top Law Schools

I had an interviewer ask me directly about my political leanings in a screener. While I think this is an incredibly inappropriate question and I don't really understand the relevance, how does one go about strategically answering this?

Anonymous User wrote:I had an interviewer ask me directly about my political leanings in a screener. While I think this is an incredibly inappropriate question and I don't really understand the relevance, how does one go about strategically answering this?

This has obviously never happened to me, but I'd say I'm a moderate, I was trained to see both sides of every article/argument/debate when doing debate, work that into approaching legal questions/arguments, and then swiftly try to bring the interview back to safer questions.

Did you have anything political on your résumé? If so I'd say it's fair game. Although, I had something totally neutral on my résumé like "current events" as an interest and I still got asked how I felt about a (very controversial) current event. It's tough to say what an interviewer is looking for. I don't want to tell you to play it safe, because some screeners will see that as a cop out. Do you.

If you put political shit on your resume, expect to be asked about it. OP, I doubt it came out of left field in a screener interview.

I could imagine it might come up without basis in an interview with a firm in DC that also has a big lobbying practice. But definitely inappropriate either way. I think it would be fair to respond that you would rather not discuss your politics. Also, you should report this to your school's career services department. They will make sure that the firm reprimands whoever asked the question. In many states, including I believe New York, asking such questions in an interview is actually illegal and could land the firm in serious trouble.

Not inappropriate if the resume screams a lot of political activity. Say hypothetically I see a resume that's littered with far left stuff. Our clients are all big banks, hedge funds, PE firms, etc. Would it be inappropriate to ask the guy if he feels comfortable serving those kind of clients?

Anonymous User wrote:I could imagine it might come up without basis in an interview with a firm in DC that also has a big lobbying practice. But definitely inappropriate either way. I think it would be fair to respond that you would rather not discuss your politics. Also, you should report this to your school's career services department. They will make sure that the firm reprimands whoever asked the question. In many states, including I believe New York, asking such questions in an interview is actually illegal and could land the firm in serious trouble.

Dont do this

OP here. I don't want to go into specifics for purposes of anonymity but the question was not directed at anything on my resume. If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate. And it was not a DC firm.

I was asked about religious shit a couple times. Took a similar approach to NPH's suggestion - also tried to obliquely address it on a more cultural level - and the conversation quickly moved on to greener pastures. With the exception of a CB partner who grilled me for half an hour on a specific theological question, which was like WTF, and I have no desire to work there anymore anyway.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I don't want to go into specifics for purposes of anonymity but the question was not directed at anything on my resume. If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate. And it was not a DC firm.

I have heard some screeners will ask borderline questions to see how a candidate will react to something that may be inappropriate or uncomfortable. You seem kind of K-Jd with how sensitive you are about this though which makes me wonder are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?

If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate.

Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

atcushman wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I don't want to go into specifics for purposes of anonymity but the question was not directed at anything on my resume. If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate. And it was not a DC firm.

I have heard some screeners will ask borderline questions to see how a candidate will react to something that may be inappropriate or uncomfortable. You seem kind of K-Jd with how sensitive you are about this though which makes me wonder are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?

Lol I'm not K-JD actually and I don't care about being asked about it, I'm just trying to figure out what the interviewer was trying to accomplish and what a strategic way would be to answer this in the future should it ever come up again

atcushman wrote:
I have heard some screeners will ask borderline questions to see how a candidate will react to something that may be inappropriate or uncomfortable.

This sounds credited.

Big Dog wrote:

If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate.

Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

It's not protected. "Race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age" are protected, but democrats are obviously not a protected class. Tangentially, there may be an argument that maybe certain political leanings are irreparably linked to one of those classes, but the argument seems difficult. I'd imagine you can't refuse to hire someone just because they once had an abortion, because this would only impact women. But you can refuse to hire someone who is pro abortion, assuming you would also not hire men who are pro abortion. Similarly, being gay is also not protected unless there is discrimination against gay men, but not against gay women. As long as the interviewer is equally bigoted against both genders, homophobia is fair game. I think that something like a Jew being a Zionist might be protected even though not all Jews are Zionists, because their actual scripture does command them to long for a return to Israel so there is an irreparable link between a protected trait and political leaning. Hope this helps!

Anonymous User wrote:

atcushman wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. I don't want to go into specifics for purposes of anonymity but the question was not directed at anything on my resume. If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate. And it was not a DC firm.

I have heard some screeners will ask borderline questions to see how a candidate will react to something that may be inappropriate or uncomfortable. You seem kind of K-Jd with how sensitive you are about this though which makes me wonder are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?

Lol I'm not K-JD actually and I don't care about being asked about it, I'm just trying to figure out what the interviewer was trying to accomplish and what a strategic way would be to answer this in the future should it ever come up again

"You know, I like to read current events but I'm a pretty apolitical person."

PepperJack wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate.

Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

It's not protected. "Race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age" are protected, but democrats are obviously not a protected class. Tangentially, there may be an argument that maybe certain political leanings are irreparably linked to one of those classes, but the argument seems difficult. I'd imagine you can't refuse to hire someone just because they once had an abortion, because this would only impact women. But you can refuse to hire someone who is pro abortion, assuming you would also not hire men who are pro abortion. Similarly, being gay is also not protected unless there is discrimination against gay men, but not against gay women. As long as the interviewer is equally bigoted against both genders, homophobia is fair game. Hope this helps!

What if your political beliefs are inseparable from your religious convictions on a host of issues, as with e.g. Quakers and pacifism or what-have-you? Or most religions, really. I always wondered about this pre-Hobby Lobby and was curious why I never heard of many high-profile cases litigated in the area.

ymmv wrote:

PepperJack wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate.

Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

It's not protected. "Race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age" are protected, but democrats are obviously not a protected class. Tangentially, there may be an argument that maybe certain political leanings are irreparably linked to one of those classes, but the argument seems difficult. I'd imagine you can't refuse to hire someone just because they once had an abortion, because this would only impact women. But you can refuse to hire someone who is pro abortion, assuming you would also not hire men who are pro abortion. Similarly, being gay is also not protected unless there is discrimination against gay men, but not against gay women. As long as the interviewer is equally bigoted against both genders, homophobia is fair game. Hope this helps!

What if your political beliefs are inseparable from your religious convictions on a host of issues, as with e.g. Quakers and pacifism or what-have-you? Or most religions, really. I always wondered about this pre-Hobby Lobby and was curious why I never heard of many high-profile cases litigated in the area.

If part of being a Quaker is being a pacifist then, yes, you can argue it would be protected. But in practice it's pretty useless. Big law is such a small world with people jumping from firm to firm that even if you successfully brought suit, you will be known as the person who sued a firm, and probably never get hired by another firm because of this baggage. I think the reason why you don't see racism or sexism in big law has more to do with these leanings being universally considered disgusting than any fear of being sued.

from eeoc

"Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[25] Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[26] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[27] Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.[28]"

Anonymous User wrote:

ymmv wrote:

PepperJack wrote:

Big Dog wrote:
Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

It's not protected. "Race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age" are protected, but democrats are obviously not a protected class. Tangentially, there may be an argument that maybe certain political leanings are irreparably linked to one of those classes, but the argument seems difficult. I'd imagine you can't refuse to hire someone just because they once had an abortion, because this would only impact women. But you can refuse to hire someone who is pro abortion, assuming you would also not hire men who are pro abortion. Similarly, being gay is also not protected unless there is discrimination against gay men, but not against gay women. As long as the interviewer is equally bigoted against both genders, homophobia is fair game. Hope this helps!

What if your political beliefs are inseparable from your religious convictions on a host of issues, as with e.g. Quakers and pacifism or what-have-you? Or most religions, really. I always wondered about this pre-Hobby Lobby and was curious why I never heard of many high-profile cases litigated in the area.

If part of being a Quaker is being a pacifist then, yes, you can argue it would be protected. But in practice it's pretty useless. Big law is such a small world with people jumping from firm to firm that even if you successfully brought suit, you will be known as the person who sued a firm, and probably never get hired by another firm because of this baggage. I think the reason why you don't see racism or sexism in big law has more to do with these leanings being universally considered disgusting than any fear of being sued.

What the fuck.

atcushman wrote:from eeoc

"Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[25] Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[26] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[27] Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.[28]"

This is such a hilariously useless dichotomy that I'm not even kinda surprised to hear it's the law.

PepperJack wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate.

Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

It's not protected. "Race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age" are protected, but democrats are obviously not a protected class. Tangentially, there may be an argument that maybe certain political leanings are irreparably linked to one of those classes, but the argument seems difficult. I'd imagine you can't refuse to hire someone just because they once had an abortion, because this would only impact women. But you can refuse to hire someone who is pro abortion, assuming you would also not hire men who are pro abortion. Similarly, being gay is also not protected unless there is discrimination against gay men, but not against gay women. As long as the interviewer is equally bigoted against both genders, homophobia is fair game. I think that something like a Jew being a Zionist might be protected even though not all Jews are Zionists, because their actual scripture does command them to long for a return to Israel so there is an irreparable link between a protected trait and political leaning. Hope this helps!

This is both stupid and ignorant. They are not protected under federal law, but many states have statutes that protect far, far more classes than federal law does, including political affiliation in DC and NY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... #State_law

Absolutely this should be reported to career services. Anyone advising you not to is a total imbecile.

Anonymous User wrote: I think the reason why you don't see racism or sexism in big law has more to do with these leanings being universally considered disgusting than any fear of being sued.

LOLWUT

(I mean, if you're saying that firms have figured out that it's NAGL to appear racist/sexist so they try to avoid that, sure. If you're actually saying there's no racism/sexism in biglaw because it's universally seen as disgusting, LOLWUT.)

Honestly, assuming the interviewer isn't saying anything you find offensive then just hear them out. Lawyers tend to have strong political leanings, and at the end of the day you're working for a partner. If you were a waiter then in addition to bringing food you're expected to be respectful and patient with the people you're serving. Similarly, you're working for the partners. People like people who they are comfortable expressing themselves to. Being liked makes it much easier to succeed especially when the work you will be doing for the foreseeable future is not really work that only 1% of law students can do. Also, if a partner you work for likes you then even if you screw something up, they will try to teach you and help you out. If they don't like you then they are less likely to try to help you. If you're incredibly passionate about Obama one way or the other then that's one thing, but if you don't care that much one way or the other, just be agreeable.

ymmv wrote:

atcushman wrote:from eeoc

"Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[25] Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[26] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[27] Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.[28]"

This is such a hilariously useless dichotomy that I'm not even kinda surprised to hear it's the law.

Hahahaha just because you believe something strongly dosnt make it a religious belief. Well how do you determine if it is a religious belief...if they believe in it strongly and its really important to them.

PepperJack wrote:Lawyers tend to have strong political leanings.

This is literally the opposite of my experience. I know lots of law students with strong political leanings, but the vast majority of attorneys I have known throughout my life have been politically moderate or just completely apathetic. Other than plaintiffs attorneys and certain types of PI folk, anyway.