I live in Florida and went to apply for a job on Monday. Today (Wednesday) I was called back and told that they were going to continue looking because of pregnancy. All through out the interview they kept talking about my family (son) and if I had support from other family members to pick him up from daycare or take him to the doctor if I couldn't leave work. I thought that they weren't even allowed to discuss your family status with you in an interview. My question is, should I contact an attorney about being turned down for the job because of my pregnancy?
Thanks

No, you should contact the EEOC.

There is nothing wrong with talking to an attorney if you want to, but the law REQUIRES that you must have a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and/or your state discrimination board before you can take legal action. So the EEOC complaint is more important, right now, than the attorney.

BTW, it is not illegal to talk about family issues. It is illegal to turn you down for employment because you are pregnant.

BTW, it is not illegal to talk about family issues. It is illegal to turn you down for employment because you are pregnant.
I do not believe that is entirely accurate. Many states have statues specifically prohibiting discrimination based on martial status. Further, the questions being asked may in fact be indicating possible discrimination based on gender. Often employers are unaware such questions & presumptions are inappropriate. I agree, therefore, you should contact the eeoc in your state. They should not only be aware of federal laws, but also be familar with state laws. you may also want to speak with an employment attorney who specializes in eeoc claims for a consultation. These intial consultations are usually free. Try NELA (national employment lawyers association) to find one in your area.
Meanwhile, on a practical note, if you are asked such questions, you could respond by asking the employer why he (or she) wants to know, and what their concerns are. Then you can answer their concerns without having to directly answer their questions, such as "I am proud of my excellent attendance record with past employers and look forward to maintaining it with your company." you could then redirect the interview by asking what benefits/vaccation days they offer...gently guiding the interview to them "selling" their salary & company to you. It will give you a good idea, then of if this is even the sort of place you'd want to work for!
Keep the interviewer talking...The more the other person talks, the more impressed they tend to be with the listeners "great conversational skills!"

Yes, it is true that marital status is protected in some states. However, parental status is only protected in two states, neither of which is the poster's, and the questions involved her child. In addition, even in the states where parental status is protected, that doesn't mean that no questions can be asked; only that the answers cannot factor into making the decision.

The point is WHY are the questions being asked. Again: Such questions MAY indicate potential gender discrimination. Which is why the poster may want to speak with an attorney & eeoc. Especially considering he has already denied her employment based on pregnancy!

I'm certainly not arguing that the employee has no basis for suit - you may recall that I'm the one to told her to go to the EEOC.

What I'm saying is that your contention that it is illegal to discuss family matters is incorrect. It MAY be evidence of discrimination especially when, as in this case, there is already very reasonable cause to suspect it. However it is not, in and of itself, illegal.

CBG, by stateing only that it is not illegal to ask such questions and not pointing out that it could add to discrimintory motives, you are leaving the impression that such questions are completely insignificant. It is important for people to know that they are not insignificant.
You refered the poster to the eeoc ONLY because the she was told point blank that she was not hired because she was not pregnate.
Direct evidence like that in discrimination cases is very rare. That does not mean that with no direct evidence there is no cause for complaint.

florida prohibits discrimination based on martial status.
resource 1 (employment attorney) says questions are illegal
resource 2 9to5 legal hotline says those questions are illegal at the federal level (via "NOLA")
waiting for answer from resource 3 & 4...

Okay, zzz, I'm not going to argue about it any longer. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't care how many attorneys you get to agree with you; until you can provide me with a statute number or the name of a case law that expressly prohibits any questions or conversation whatsoever about family, I'm going to continue to state that asking the questions is not illegal - using the information in making a hiring decision may be.

And I never said maritial status was not protected in FL - I said parental status was not. And it isn't.

I am trying to find it...that's why I'm trying to contact these people...actually, I'm confused about the 9to5 saying it's "federal" as she may be looking at "federal employees"
The point is that asking questions like that is a red flag to WHY are you asking.

And I'm not disagreeing with you as to that point. But there can be any number of reasons why, including just trying in a rather misguided way to break the ice and make the applicant feel comfortable. It doesn't HAVE to be for a discriminatory reason, even though it CAN be. Just because THIS poster has legitimate reason to find the questions discriminatory, doesn't mean that everyone who gets asked if they have children can.

And it ISN'T illegal at the Federal level, though it may be for Federal employees. At the Federal level, illegal discrimination covers race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, pregnancy, and being over 40. Recent decisions indicate that military status may soon be added to that list, though it is not yet covered under Title VII. But that's it. Check the EEOC website yourself.

What matters to THIS poster is that THIS employer was stupid enough to blatantly admit that he was refusing to hire her for a reason that is prohibited under Federal law.

1. I did not say that martial status is protected at the fed. level. I said that the legal hot-line did, and that i thought she was looking at federal employees.
2. I am familiar with the eeoc web site, thank you.
3. I am not saying that EVERY person who is asking these questions in an interview has illegal motives. I am saying it MAY be a red flag, point being, don't dismiss it especially if you alreadys have another claim. eeoc might be able to investigate and inquire further.
4. I am not trying to pick a fight, I am trying to clear up conflicts I'm getting on my end.
5. I just get concerned when people get short "letter of the law" answers without inquiring further. Something could be missed. That happened to me, and to others I know, and things like that can end up opening up some important matters.
6. I still stick to my original advice of how to respond to those sort of questions in an interview. What's the concern.
7. Terminated for taking coffee filters Post is a good example of how a quick, response vs asking additional questions can be of more assistance to people. I include myself in that "quick response," as well as another.
Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to be sure people know what to look for. "fired for no reason" is another. Maybe the employer is just chicken about firing someone saying "you need to bath more often," which is not illegal. But, based on my own experience, it may be more. I was told "letter of law" that it was legal. In fact, it resulted in multiple charges. I would have given up if someone didn't point out a few possibilities.
Can we end this now? ;) :)

I was ready to end it several posts ago.

"arrogance can be humbled,
Immaturity can be outgrown,
and ignorance educated...
but when you put the three together,
with no change, or willingness to change..
then what you have is just plain stupid.
And stupid is forever."

Questions about marital status and number and ages of children are frequently used to discriminate against women and may violate Title VII if used to deny or limit employment opportunities. It is clearly discriminatory to ask such questions only of women and not men (or vice-versa). Even if asked of both men and women, such questions may be seen as evidence of intent to discriminate against, for example, women with children. Generally, employers should not use non job-related questions involving marital status, number and/or ages of children or dependents, or names of spouses or children of the applicant. Such inquiries may be asked after an employment offer has been made and accepted if needed for insurance or other legitimate business purposes.

The following pre-employment inquiries may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate when asked in the pre-employment context:

Whether applicant is pregnant.
Marital status of applicant or whether applicant plans to marry.
Number and age of children or future child bearing plans.
Child care arrangements.
Employment status of spouse.
Name of spouse.

If you need more information, you may also visit our web site at www.eeoc.gov to find out more about us and our laws. Please feel free to call us anytime between the hours of 8:00am to 8:00pm Eastern time, Monday-Friday to speak with one of our customer service representatives. We would be happy to assist you.


Sincerely,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Phone: (800) 669-4000
TTY: (800) 669-6820
FAX: (703) 997-4890
Email: info@ask.eeoc.gov
www.eeoc.gov