Job-seekers trying to break into entry-level professional jobs can dress for success and be armed with a degree, but they often are unprepared when an interviewer`s probing questions turn discriminatory.
In some cases, guidance counselors say, men and women may not even recognize what is happening. If they do, they may be so intent on getting that first foot in the door that they will put up with it.
By the same token, say defense attorneys, interviewers may not realize that their personal questions are against the law.
Yet interview-level discrimination in entry-level professional job slots is on the rise, according to John P. Rowe, director of the Chicago district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The area EEOC office has received more than one complaint a month about discriminatory interview questions during the last year, Rowe said, and the frequency of such complaints is on the rise.
Most of the complaints currently popping up in the Chicago area, he said, involve two areas: pregnancy plans and age. ”Pregnancy and age problems are everyday matters,” Rowe said. ”Other biases come out from time to time, but it is a consistent enough pattern that we know in both areas that this is not a kind of discrimination that has been eliminated from personnel offices, even in sophisticated companies.”
In contrast, just five years ago the more common interview-related discrimination involved arrest-record questions, which were deemed to be race- related. Those complaints have almost disappeared, Rowe said.
Rowe said that in both areas, companies have not eliminated from interviews the kinds of ”loyalty tests” that have female interviewees asked questions about their plans for child-bearing, and older applicants asked questions about whether they would mind working for a younger supervisor.
”As we address issues higher up in an organization, we find we are dealing with these matters more often,” Rowe said. ”It is not an everyday occurrence for the entry-level blue-collar or clerical worker.”
A typical case of interview-level discrimination at the EEOC is one in which a newly graduated female with an MBA is asked about her expectations for child-bearing. Also typical is a case in which a middle-aged man or woman whose previous job has been eliminated is asked whether he or she plans to work for 30 more years.
”It appears to us that this still is a socially acceptable form of discrimination among major employers,” Rowe said. ”It is seen not as a matter of discrimination but as a matter of testing loyalty and commitment to an employer. If your interest in having a family is apparently strong, it is taken as a negative-and this is a question that only applies to women.”
In general, most of the interview-based complaints that lead to lawsuits end in quiet settlements, Rowe said.
It may be that the EEOC is seeing more cases of certain types of interview-based discrimination because awareness of offensive and illegal interviewing tactics is also on the rise. University officials seem both ready to alert students to discrimination and willing to back them up when they are faced with it.
In one notorious case two years ago, a black female law student from the University of Chicago went for an interview with the prestigious Chicago firm of Baker & McKenzie. Her interviewer, a white male partner with the firm, proceeded to ask her patently offensive questions. Among them were how she would feel if a legal colleague ”called her a black bitch,” and why she thought blacks should be allowed into white country clubs-a practice he made clear he disagreed with, said University of Chicago Law School Dean Geoffrey Stone.
In response to the incident, the University of Chicago banned Baker & McKenzie from recruiting on the campus for one year.
Most guidance counselors at college placement offices are aware of illegal questions, and, like the University of Chicago, they will act to protect students from discrimination by recruiters. The University of Chicago holds recruiters to a standard of not discriminating on the basis of race, sex, ethnic origin or religion, Stone said.
Complaints of blatant discrimination such as the Baker & McKenzie incident are very rare, Stone said.
Jane McGrath, placement director at De Paul University, also said that blatant discrimination by recruiters is rare. However, the placement office prepares students for ”uncomfortable” interviews, she said.
McGrath said the placement officers at De Paul are trained to recognize illegal questions.
The fine lines between illegal, inept and just curious or friendly is where interviewers get into trouble, and interviewees need to guard against taking offense too quickly, said Anne Ladky, a long-time veteran of counseling women about employment discrimination as director of Women Employed, an advocacy and training organization for working women.
”In our programs, we don`t say, `Here`s what`s legal, here`s what`s illegal`,” Ladky said. ”Candidates have to make a lot of judgments about what they do and do not want to answer. Some questions are not asked with illegal intent. Suppose a male interviewer is more used to socializing with women than interviewing them. He might ask about husband, about kids. The candidate`s job is to distinguish between whether such questions are casual, or whether they are probing in the wrong direction.”
Essentially, Ladky and others in the employment discrimination area say, almost any questions of a personal nature are veering off into dangerous and possibly illegal territory. But Ladky said it is not advisable for an interviewee to discuss the legality or illegality of a line of questioning with the interviewer.
Although there are a number of legal recourses, including the EEOC, the Illinois Human Rights Department and the City of Chicago`s Human Rights Commission, Ladky recommends that job candidates try to politely finesse their way out of sticky situations if they really want a job.
”What to do depends on the overall atmosphere of the interview,” Ladky said. ”If you are getting signals that this employer is intending to discriminate-in the extreme case-the candidate should say, `I don`t think this is a good match,` and excuse himself or herself. I don`t think people should sit through it.
”But if you don`t have a negative view of the prospects, a candidate should try to get to the heart of the interviewer`s question and ignore the discriminatory angle. For example . . . If an interviewer started to talk about what my plans were to have children-I think that`s pretty dangerous ground-I might ignore the inquiry that I didn`t care to answer and simply talk about what my career plans were.”
Chicago attorney Elaine Fox, a partner with D`Ancona & Pflaum, is in the business of training employers not to discriminate. She defends companies when they are sued for discrimination and also tries to prepare them with knowledge of what is and is not illegal in interviewing.
Fox said that, in general, ”job-relatedness” is the key to a question`s legality.
Although in Illinois questions about sexual orientation-whether a person is gay or lesbian-are only illegal in selected municipalities, including Chicago and Oak Park, Fox says she would advise clients to steer away from that area as well. ”. . . I would suggest that it not be asked, even where it`s not illegal, because it`s not job-related. . . .”
Both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago offer recourse to people who believe they have faced employment discrimination. The state`s human rights law is similar to the federal law behind the EEOC, but the City of Chicago`s ordinance is broader, outlawing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and disallowing employment decisions on the basis of parental status or income level.
Miriam Pickus, attorney and director of human rights compliance at the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, said that one other notable difference is that the city ordinance allows people to sue small companies, while the state and federal statutes only apply to companies with 15 or more employees. Pickus said that how much a person should put up with may be based on economic or educational standing: ”Legal recourse still might not make you whole. You are still out of work for a year. People come from different places on the economic spectrum, and may have different responses because of that.”
