I am developing an employment application and have come across phrasing in several samples that is confusing.  Can anyone say more about, or give an example of, the following:

".. be aware that none of the questions are intended to imply illegal preferences or discrimination based upon non job-related information...."

specifically, what's an example of a question that might  "imply illegal preferences"? 

Thanks.

In what year did you graduate from HS?

In what year did you graduate from college?

What is the name of your spouse?

Do you have any children?

Do you own a car?

What does your spouse, parents, friends etc think about you working here?

You say you were born where?

How will you care for your disabled child?

Do you want children?

Tell me about being in that wheel chair.

So what you both are saying is that the purpose of the statement I asked about is to protect the employer even if they asked an illegal question?  I hadn't even considered that possibility.  (and would be surprised if that worked)

CarolL1999:

So what you both are saying is that the purpose of the statement I asked about is to protect the employer even if they asked an illegal question?  I hadn't even considered that possibility.  (and would be surprised if that worked)

Not sure I understand what you mean but let me try to explain. The questions above are samples of questions not to ask for they can be construed as having an illegal or bias intent. 

The purpose or intent that I thought you meant was how not to ask an illegal question. The objective in protecting the employer concerning interview questions is to be sure that questions are framed that will give you a good picture of the candidate yet staying well within the rights and protections afforded by law to prospective candidates.  There is no such thing as doing the wrong thing the right way. (Not that you implied that) If the questions imply, even inadvertently, a bias or something illegal you are already on the losing side.

Example: You know a candidate lives a distance away and has no transportation. You cannot ask if they have a car, but you can ask how they intend to meet the essential job duty of being to work on time daily. A candidate comes in sitting in a wheel chair. You can't imply the candidate can't do the job "how is it sitting in that wheelchair?" You can ask can you perform the essential job duties with or without accommodation?

Asking about children may imply gender bias. Asking about graduation dates may imply age bias; asking about disabled family members may imply care giver bias.

So my thinking of your statement was not how to protect the employer if they ask an illegal question but, rather, how to protect your employer from asking an illegal question. Right?

PHS09:

Now I think I may have asked an illegal question.  If an applicant is applying for a job and lives a significant distance away, can I let them know where we are located and ask if the commute would be a problem?   What protected class am I discriminating against? 

Don't worry too much. Just be careful how you frame the question. An argument could be made that some minority or some other person may claim an under-privledge and make a claim of bias. The idea is to avoid questions that may imply discrimination even inadvertantly.

Don't ask if the commute will be a problem. How a person will get back and forth to work is not an essential job function. Being to work at a designated hour each day is an essential job function. Have that spelled out in the essential duties that must be met. You may ask if they can meet the essential job funtion of being at an assignment at the designated time on the required days with or without an accomodation. If they say yes then all you can do is hold them responsible during their tenure.

CarolL1999:

So what you both are saying is that the purpose of the statement I asked about is to protect the employer even if they asked an illegal question?  I hadn't even considered that possibility.  (and would be surprised if that worked)

Nope.  The purpose of the statement you asked about is to suggest that any reading of any question that suggests to the reader an improper intent on the part of the Company is not really improper.  I doubt that really would have any power in a court action.

"Ladies and gentlement of the jury, I know it doesn't look good that everyone who works at our accounting firm is under the age of 30 but the only reason we ask when someone graduated college is to see if there is anybody we employ they may know who graduated at the same time.  Besides, any fool can plainly see that asking about college graduation dates has nothing to do with improper intentions as you can plainly see on the application for employment upon when we stated that all our questions stem from a virtuous intent."

cappy:

So my thinking of your statement was not how to protect the employer if they ask an illegal question but, rather, how to protect your employer from asking an illegal question. Right?

Thanks for sticking with the discussion, I appreciate it.

 I do understand about illegal questions, why they are illegal, and how to focus on questions about ability to perform the job rather than personal qualities, characteristics and demographic data.

My question was a little different, so let me say it this way:

As I develop my own employment application, I have seen on several sample applications the phrase " ...be aware that none of the below questions are intended to imply illegal preferences or discrimination based upon non job-related information..."  Since I've seen it on several different samples, I guessed that it is boilerplate language intended to do....  something.  I thought perhaps someone here had some insight on why this somewhat common phrase might be included on an application, and guessed that it was to cover the employer about the questions asked on the application, but couldn't quite come up with what it covered the employer for.  As you say above, you can't unring the bell once a bad question has been asked.

Maybe the statement is not meant to protect the employer regarding the questions themselves, but rather responses applicants might give that would inadvertently reveal information the employer wouldn't have asked for.  As an example, if an applicant responds to the question about prior experience by listing volunteer positions for a religious organization, ethnic organization, etc., that phrase on the application is meant to say that the organization isn't indicating a preference for those types of affiliations by asking the more general question.

TXHRGuy:

The purpose of the statement you asked about is to suggest that any reading of any question that suggests to the reader an improper intent on the part of the Company is not really improper.  I doubt that really would have any power in a court action.

 

This explanation of the statement I was asking about makes sense to me.  Thanks.

Maybe the statement is not meant to protect the employer regarding the questions themselves, but rather responses applicants might give that would inadvertently reveal information the employer wouldn't have asked for.  As an example, if an applicant responds to the question about prior experience by listing volunteer positions for a religious organization, ethnic organization, etc., that phrase on the application is meant to say that the organization isn't indicating a preference for those types of affiliations by asking the more general question.

Ok now I understand.