“Oh for crying out loud, where are all the Ron Paul "freedom" fighters here??? She took a picture that is marginally disrespectful and barely stupid. We do have free speech and she shouldn't lose her job for something like this. The hand-wringing on this makes my head hurt.”
“Actually, none of those things are "illegal questions" to ask, which is a widely held misconception. However, what IS illegal is discrimination based on age, national origin, religion, race, sexual orientation (in some places) and disability (which could be discerned by your protected health information). Height and weight, organizational affiliations (i.e. political party or other memberships) and marital status (which I am guessing you are inferring with a maiden name) are not protected by any employment law statute that I know of. Most companies will have interviewer training so that questions such as these are not asked, because of the increased risk of discrimination litigation, but there is really no such thing as an "illegal question" in an interview process, it is ACTING ON THE ANSWERS that is illegal.”
JayyVee on Mar 22, 2012 at 14:44:06
Answer the question.
Answer the "intent" of the question. For example, if you are asked whether you are a United States citizen (not legal to ask), reply that you are authorized to work in the U.S., which is a question the employer can ask you and which is appropriate to answer.
Try to change the topic of conversation and avoid the question.
Refuse to answer the question which might cost you the job if you are very uncomfortable with the question. However, consider whether you really want to work somewhere where you are asked questions that are not appropriate.
Before You File a Claim
Before you file a claim for discrimination, you might want to consider that most discrimination is not deliberate. In many cases, the interviewer may simply be ignorant of the law. Even though the interviewer may have ask an illegal question it doesn't necessarily mean that the intent was to discriminate or that a crime has been committed.
Filing a Claim
If you believe you have been discriminated against by an employer, labor union or employment agency when applying for a job or while on the job because of your race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, or believe that you have been discriminated against because of opposing a prohibited practice or participating in an equal employment opportunity matter, you may file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).”
JayyVee on Mar 22, 2012 at 14:42:16
“YOU ARE INCORRECT.
Federal and state laws prohibit prospective employers from asking certain questions that are not related to the job they are hiring for. Questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information.
In a nutshell, employers should not be asking about your race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age.
Illegal Interview Questions
Employers should not ask about any of the following, because to not hire a candidate because of any one of them is discriminatory:
“Dude, chill out. There is no charge that the Thomas's evaded taxes on her earnings, only that he failed to disclose the information on his annual disclosure. They aren't supposed to be in jail or have the assets seized. The truth is bad enough without the hyperbole, okay?”
alhorvath on Nov 27, 2011 at 01:51:20
“Now on the other hand Representative Rangel not only failed to mention some of his income he also failed to pay taxes on it. Where was the outrage?”
“Well, people are fed (i.e. not starving) with food stamps/SNAP/whatever, Medicaid gives poor people basic healthcare, Medicare gives poor/old people basic medical care, Section 8 does help with housing so that people aren't homeless (your "data" on public is specious, at best), SSI provides assistance to people with disabilities,, etc. I could go on, but I won't because the question was WHAT HAVE THE REPUBLICANS DONE??? So please answer that, since Rick Tyler would not, could not and did not...”
“Your post was just adorably dismissive at first and you seem to believe that all the people in jail for non-violent drug crimes are hard-core addicts. Far from it. A huge number of them are recreational users or those busted on marijuana charges. Saying that people who are holding weed are somehow akin to murderers and bank robbers is just absurd.”
“You say you should listen and "understand it won't be forever"...but the article said it was 2 years after the death. Co-workers should not be expected to provide therapy for 2 years to a colleague. If they had become uncomfortable, they have a right to complain. If they complained, the supervisor has a duty to act. Did he act sensitively? Not in the least. But did he act in a discriminatory way? No, because grieving mothers are not a protected class. This situation could have been handled much, much better, imho, but it doesn't appear to have been criminal or intentional infliction of emotional distress, so it looks to me like the judge got it right. And it is not anti-labor or pro-management to think so...”
pauleyshere on Sep 10, 2011 at 01:06:08
“The discrimination would come in if they asked only this woman to remove the pictures. If it was not a company policy that was enforced for all, then it was discriminatory. As to intentional infliction of emotional distress, I wouldn't bet on it. I've seen people in the workplace target someone they didn't like and complain about every little thing they do in an effort to get them to quit or be fired. I'm talking about hard-working, good, loyal employees here. It would be interesting to have gotten the rest of the story, so to speak.”
syds180turn on Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:34
“There is no time limit on grief. Some people can pull themselves together in a short period of time and others may take a bit longer. Grieving mothers may not be a protected class, however there is something called a moral compass. If the employees truly complained then yes, the manager had to speak with her, but to tell her to take the pictures of her deceased child down and to act as though that child didn't exist...as I said, the line was crossed with employee/employer relations and if you ask one employee to restrict their personal effects in their work station then it absolutely should be mandatory for all employees to comply. That's where the legal slippery slope comes into play. And I stick by my original comment on anti-labor and pro-management...labor has been severely crippled against big business over the past decade and it's only going to get worse..”
“Okay, why are there no explanations for the margarita, beer and latte???? How do you fry a latte????”
camanokat on Aug 14, 2011 at 18:24:53
“Freeze it first?”
Martel LXIV on Aug 14, 2011 at 18:23:46
“The fried beer looks like toasted ravioli (which is not toasted, but fried). I've been eating that for a very, very long time (very, very, very long time), and it may not be a health food per se but if you don't eat it all the time and don't eat heaping plates of it when you do eat it, it's not a problem. At least it's not a problem for me since I don't have high cholesterol, am not overweight and don't have any heart issues. It's all about moderation, even with fried foods.”
“I am so glad "The Corrections" is on this list, because if I have to hear one more time how Jonathan Franzen is such a "powerful voice" and a great storyteller, I will have to puke. I couldn't even finish this pretentious, overwritten bore of a book, and every time I read someone talk about how wonderful it was, I wonder if we were actually reading the same thing.
But, my pick for this list would be "Catcher in the Rye". I will contend that I might have had a different view of it had I read it as a teenager, but I didn't, I read it as a 30-year old and I HATED Holden Caulfield. I wanted to smack him in the mouth 20x while I was reading the book. I am the only person I know who feels this way (or maybe the only one who will admit it), but to me, this is the single most overrated book I have ever read.”
KT31 on Jul 12, 2011 at 14:57:36
“Nope - not the only one. I agree on both - the Corrections was worse because it was longer and I actually did read the whole thing. But it was terrible - I'd like to have those hours back!”
“The debt has already been "authorized by law", i.e. Congress already created this debt, all the debt ceiling does is get Congressional approval to raise a faux debt limit to pay it. It's like dickering over your credit limit when the charges have already been made. It is pure posturing to even have this debate, because the debt has already been incurred.”
“I am not sure I am clear what this screenshot of a Target application proves--it asks for birthDAY not birthDATE. Since it doesn't ask for the year, then age is not established, and establishing the month and day can legitmately be used for a background check (i.e. to differentiate two people with the same first and last name), without providing grounds for a discrimination claim, which is the reason why most intelligent employers refrain from asking.
And I am wondering where all the commenters have worked that have "always" asked for the DOB during the application process? I have been in HR for 15 years and I have only worked for one place that was stupid enough to ask for this information pre-offer. ASKING the question is not illegal, but it is profoundly stupid, if one wants to avoid age discrimination claims. It is perfectly fine to ask "Are you XX age or over?" if that is a requirement of the job, however, and this is how most employers handle the minimum age question.”
“This post proves that you missed both Groupon's and Lawrence's points altogether.
The ads were fine--they were funny, they were definitely effective (see us still talking about them 3 days later), they had a social conscience (as Lawrence said, you didn't see GoDaddy or Pepsi bringin attentiont to anything other than half-naked women or soday, did you?) and they will drive traffic to the site, which is the point. And if you had gotten on their site, you would see their big push for yesterday was for a donation to Greenpeace, in addition to their regular local groupons. Win-win-win Groupon.”
quintus on Feb 9, 2011 at 12:17:04
“Yes, people are still talking about this ad, but no one is talking about Tibet, right? Do you seriously think that viewers who watched this ad and who knew next to nothing about what has been happening in Tibet for the last 50+ years are suddenly going to be galvanized by it? I mean, THIS is going to be the catalyst for their involvement?”