Skip to main content area Skip to main content area Skip to institutional navigation Skip to search Skip to section navigation

Policies

Non-Discrimination Policy

The University of Pennsylvania and its Law School do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, creed, national or ethnic origin, citizenship status, age, disability, or veteran status or any other legally protected class status. Employers utilizing our career planning facilities will be held to the same standard of non-discrimination. Any claims of discrimination brought against recruiting employers will be referred to the Faculty/Student Career Planning and Professionalism Committee.

No Pre-Screening

On-campus interviews at Penn Law are assigned by computer lottery system based on student bids and taking into account student preferences and availability. Employers are not permitted to “pre-screen” candidates. A limited exception is made for IP firms, which may conduct pre-screening to ensure that technical degree requirements are met by candidates.

Conducting Lawful & Effective Interviews

Our talented students, like all prospective lawyers, come from diverse backgrounds. We urge you to consider and respect this diversity when conducting interviews. We hope the following information will assist employers in avoiding the use of illegal and/or inappropriate questions and will assure the fairness, integrity and productivity of the interview process.

When Interviewing Students

Provide an explanation to all candidates of your organization’s non-discrimination policies and support for candidate diversity.

Each student deserves equal respect and attention during the interview process - carefully review the resumes of your interviewees.

Try to recognize any preconceptions or assumptions you might have about an individual. This will help you to better evaluate each candidate fairly and impartially.

Whatever you identify as your interviewing “style,” use it consistently with all students.

While few instances of discriminatory conduct on the part of employers who use Penn Law’s Career Planning and Professionalism services are reported by students, it remains a serious concern in the legal employment marketplace. It is important to remember that an interviewer, although perhaps not out of animus, can create a perception of insensitivity to difference with inappropriate questions and comments. This perception, even if not reflective of your organization, may then be spread to other law students to the detriment of all. To help prevent this perception of insensitivity, we provide examples below of irrelevant interview questions as well as some insensitive attitudes and assumptions, derived from EEOC guidelines and from the interview experiences of our law students. We appreciate your attention to these suggestions.

Inappropriate Interview Questions:

  • How long have you been disabled? Can you get out of your wheel chair?
  • What did your father do for a living?
  • Do you own your own home?
  • Are you the first in your family to attend law school or to get a degree?
  • Will you have adequate childcare for your children?
  • Are you married/single/engaged/divorced or dating?
  • Do you have or plan to have children?
  • Will your parenting responsibilities interfere with your professional responsibilities?
  • Would you move if your spouse’s employment required a move?
  • How old are you? How would someone your age fit in with other people?
  • Why did you choose an all-black college?
  • What do you mean you have a partner?
  • Where were your relatives born?
  • What is your religious preference? Which holidays do you observe?

Discriminatory Attitudes & Assumptions:

  • Suggesting that a candidate, because of a personal characteristic such as race or religious affiliation, may not feel “comfortable” due to the lack of others like them in the workplace.
  • Commenting on a candidate’s dress or appearance.
  • Assuming that the candidate you are interviewing is heterosexual; joking about sex or sexual preference or gender issues.
  • Discouraging women from specialties considered “aggressive;” encouraging women to work in areas that are deemed “more suitable.”
  • Assuming or suggesting that a candidate attends law school due to some extraordinary admissions criteria; inquiring into the undergraduate grades or LSAT scores of people of color but not of other candidates.
  • Inquiring as to whether a candidate has ever been to a law firm office before, or suggesting that a candidate may never before have been in a professional environment.
  • Maintaining that disabled people who succeed are remarkable or extraordinary. 
Bug 00