Can they actually ask you that?

Age is one of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Asking is not automatically unlawful, but there is almost no legitimate reason to ask, and using your age to decide is age discrimination. Note that a question about your graduation year is an age question wearing a different hat, and is often how it actually gets asked.

You could say: “I'd rather talk about what I've actually done — happy to walk you through the most relevant bits.”

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects people aged 40 or older — and, in the EEOC’s own words, it "does not protect workers under the age of 40", though some states do. Federal law does not clearly forbid the question itself, but the EEOC says such inquiries "may be used as evidence of an employer’s intent to discriminate". A graduation-year question is an age question by another route.

You could say: “I'd rather talk about what I've actually done — happy to walk you through the most relevant bits.”

Two separate protected characteristics live here: "marriage and civil partnership", and "pregnancy and maternity". Note what that means precisely — the protection is for being married or in a civil partnership, so being single is not itself protected. Asking is not automatically unlawful, but deciding on any of it is discrimination, and questions about childcare are one of the most common ways it happens.

You could say: “I keep my personal life separate from work — I can commit to the hours and the travel this role needs.”

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, and the EEOC states that "employers should not make inquiries into whether an applicant or employee intends to become pregnant". On children and family plans more broadly, the EEOC advises employers not to ask — but it labels that a best practice that goes "beyond federal non-discrimination requirements", so it is guidance rather than a statutory bar. Either way, a decision made on it is a problem for the employer.

You could say: “I keep my personal life separate from work — I can commit to the hours and the travel this role needs.”

Race is a protected characteristic, and GOV.UK defines it broadly: "race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin". Asking is not automatically unlawful, but there is no version of this question that helps an employer assess whether you can do the job. Keep it separate from a right-to-work question, which is a legitimate thing for them to check.

You could say: “I grew up in a few places — but on the job itself, the part I think is most relevant is...”

The EEOC describes national origin discrimination as treating people unfavourably "because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not)". Federal law does not clearly forbid the question, but the EEOC warns such inquiries may be evidence of intent to discriminate. It is also a distinct matter from whether you are authorised to work, which they may ask about.

You could say: “I grew up in a few places — but on the job itself, the part I think is most relevant is...”

"Religion or belief" is a protected characteristic, and it covers a lack of religion too. Asking is not automatically unlawful, and an employer can legitimately ask whether you can work the hours the job actually requires. What they cannot do is decide on the basis of what you believe — and a question about weekend availability is a fair question, while a question about which faith causes it is not.

You could say: “I can work the pattern this role needs — is there anything specific about the hours I should know?”

Religion is a protected class under Title VII, and employers also have a duty to reasonably accommodate religious practice. Federal law does not clearly forbid the question, but the EEOC warns that inquiries relating to religion may be used as evidence of intent to discriminate. Asking whether you can work a required schedule is legitimate; asking which faith shapes your answer is not.

You could say: “I can work the pattern this role needs — is there anything specific about the hours I should know?”

This is the strongest rule on the page. Section 60 of the Equality Act 2010 says an employer "must not ask about the health of the applicant" before offering work or before putting you in a pool of people they intend to offer work to — and the Act treats disability as an aspect of health. There are five narrow exceptions, including establishing whether you can carry out a function intrinsic to the job, and arranging adjustments for the assessment itself. One thing worth knowing: a breach of the asking rule is enforceable by the Equality and Human Rights Commission rather than by you directly. Your own claim arises if they act on the answer.

You could say: “Is there a specific task in the role you want to check I can do? Happy to talk about that.”

The ADA is a flat prohibition here: "An employer may not ask disability-related questions and may not conduct medical examinations until after it makes a conditional job offer." That holds even if the disability is obvious or you have mentioned it. Pre-offer, they may ask limited questions about reasonable accommodation if they reasonably believe you may need one, but not about the nature or severity of a condition. After a conditional offer, they may ask — provided everyone selected for that job is asked the same.

You could say: “Is there a specific task in the role you want to check I can do? Happy to talk about that.”

Both "sexual orientation" and "gender reassignment" are named protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. Asking is not automatically unlawful, but none of it bears on whether you can do a job, and deciding on it is discrimination. A question about a partner is often meant as small talk and still lands in protected territory — you are under no obligation to fill it in.

You could say: “I keep my personal life out of work, if that's alright. Shall we pick up on the role?”

Title VII covers sex discrimination, and in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) the Supreme Court held that firing someone for being gay or transgender is discrimination because of sex. The EEOC’s prohibited-practices page listed "sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy)" when this page was last checked. Federal law does not clearly forbid the question itself, but deciding on the answer is unlawful.

You could say: “I keep my personal life out of work, if that's alright. Shall we pick up on the role?”

It depends entirely on the role. For most jobs, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 means a question about convictions is treated as not covering SPENT ones, and you may answer on that basis — and a spent conviction is not a proper ground for excluding you. But that protection is subject to the Exceptions Order 1975, which removes it for a long list of roles including healthcare, law, policing, and work with children or vulnerable adults. In practice you only have to disclose a spent conviction if they ask, they tell you the role needs a standard or enhanced DBS check, and it has not been filtered from DBS certificates.

You could say: “Is this role subject to a DBS check, and if so, which level? I'll answer on that basis.”

There is no federal law stopping a private employer asking about arrests or convictions in an interview — a criminal record is not a protected class under Title VII. What federal law limits is how the answer is USED: a blanket rule rejecting anyone with a record can be challenged if it disproportionately screens out people by race or national origin. The bigger constraint is usually local: California bars employers with five or more staff from asking before a conditional offer, Minnesota delays it until you have been selected for an interview, and federal agencies and federal contractors cannot ask until after a conditional offer. If they run a formal background check through an outside company, they need your written permission first and must give you a copy of the report before rejecting you over it.

You could say: “Happy to go through that at the right stage — is this something you're checking before or after an offer?”

As at August 2026 we found no UK legislation banning salary history questions, so they can ask — and many still do. The Government’s approach has been a voluntary pay transparency pilot, announced in March 2022, in which participating employers agreed to advertise salaries and stop asking. You are not obliged to answer, and redirecting to what you are looking for is completely normal and rarely lands badly.

You could say: “I'd rather talk about the range for this role — I'm looking for somewhere around X, does that work?”

There is no federal ban, but a patchwork of state and city laws prohibits it — so the answer genuinely turns on where you are. California law says an employer "shall not... seek salary history information", and Washington State says an employer "may not... seek the wage or salary history of an applicant". Both allow you to volunteer it if you want to, and both permit the employer to ask what you are LOOKING for, which is a different question.

You could say: “I'd rather talk about the range for this role — I'm looking for somewhere around X, does that work?”

They can ask, and they genuinely need to know. UK employers have a legal duty to prevent illegal working and must complete a right to work check before your employment begins. What they must not do is apply it selectively: GOV.UK’s guidance is explicit that employers must not check only those who "appear to you likely to be migrants", and must not assume anything about your status from "colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, accent, surname or the length of time they have been resident". Asking about your right to work is a legitimate question. Asking where you are from is not.

You could say: “Yes — I have the right to work in the UK, and I'm happy to provide the documents at the right stage.”

It depends which question they actually asked, and the two get confused constantly. "Are you authorised to work in the United States?" is a fair question. "Are you a US citizen?" is not the same thing — the EEOC states that "most employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment". Employers also cannot demand specific documents only from people they perceive as foreign, and cannot run the I-9 or E-Verify process before you have accepted an offer.

You could say: “I'm authorised to work in the US, and I'll complete the verification paperwork whenever you need it.”