There are two kinds of tests that might take place during your interview: Skills tests and personality-aptitude tests. You will generally have to take skills tests to get a job for which they are relevant. You can also ask to take them at another time, and you don't have to offer much of a reason for doing so, either. I know of an employee who was hired immediately when she said with a smile, "I’m sure it's important for you to know how well I can use this computer, but I’d like to do this at another time, because I’ll be more relaxed than I am right now in our interview. That way you'll have a better idea of how my work will meet your standards."
It was a fair request. The interviewer liked everything he had learned about the candidate's qualifications, and he decided she couldn't have gotten that far without the requisite skills on the computer. He was right, as she demonstrated in her first week on the job.
Psychological testing is another matter. Many employers would be attracted to a test that would tell them what kinds of people fit best in which environments. So far, however, there are no silver bullets of sufficient accuracy, or that can tell the employer whether the individual will be effective on the job. Stories abound about employers who have totally disregarded the findings of such tests, hired the candidates anyway, and been well satisfied with their decisions.
On another level, I would have to question the right of an organization to probe something so private as an outsider's personality by using testing tools that are of questionable validity and that are subject to interpretation by a test reader whose credentials may be marginal. Consider this: If the instrument is perceived to be valid, using it is tantamount to an invasion of privacy, because such testing would normally occur in the privacy of a licensed psychologist's office. If the organization doesn't perceive it to be valid, why is it used at all? In my opinion, candidates have the moral right, and should have the legal right, to refuse to take such tests. This view, of course, does not apply to aptitude tests, civil service examinations, and comparable tests designed to help predict one's potential to succeed in a given field based on ability.
Illegal Questions
Yes, there is a federal law that governs what employers are not entitled to ask you, but the law is not without its loopholes and exceptions. Commonly referred to as Title VII (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its amendments), the law pertains only to companies with fifteen or more employees. It also leaves room for employers who have a need to know certain information for job-related reasons.
Most employers realize that race, sex, and religion are taboo subject areas; that is the basis for the equal employment opportunity legislation.
If you know the law and are familiar with your rights, what should you do if you are asked an illegal question? Do you declare the question out of bounds? Leave? File a lawsuit? Assuming you are correct and the employer has no legal right to ask the question, will it make a difference if he or she did not know which questions are off limits? Will it matter that he or she may have had a reasonable purpose in asking the question?
In one case with which I am familiar, the employer asked a female applicant what she would do with her year-old child during working hours. (She had volunteered information about the baby.) Although the interviewer's firm had fewer than fifteen employees and so he was not restricted legally from asking the question, this was not the issue: His reason, it turned out, was that until the candidate had made day-care arrangements, he was willing to invite her to bring her child to the office when she could not find a sitter.
Some things have to be put in proper perspective. One candidate mentioned something about her church activities. The employer, also a churchgoer, asked what church she went to. Was it an illegal question, or was it an effort to show an interest and establish a rapport? The business did have over fifteen employees, after all. The point here is not to demean legislation that serves a valid purpose. It is simply to say that there are times when an extra bit of understanding on the candidate's part may help the situation succeed for all parties.
Are you living with someone?" may be an illegal question, but what if it's asked by one man of another merely to extend an offer to join an apartment-sharing group with other men his age?
"Do you have a criminal record?" may be illegal to ask in most instances but not if you have valid, job-related reasons for asking. The intent of the law is to protect people who, historically, have been discriminated against. If you feel you need to report a potential employer, do so. You'll most likely get immediate action. You may not get the job, however, and even if you do, you may not receive a very enthusiastic welcome.
Instead, try this approach to see if you can get behind the question and discover intent. When you are asked what you feel may be an illegal question, respond by saying; "That's an unexpected question, and I'm sure you must have a reason for it. Would you please elaborate for me?" What you hear next will either reassure you of the interviewer's good intentions or let the interviewer get into deep trouble. When I shared this concept with an attorney in this field, she said: "I like it." In many cases, if you can anticipate an area that might be of reasonable concern to a potential employer, you might broach the subject yourself and let the interviewer know why your candidacy would not be affected.
