If you are actively interviewing, it is highly likely you will be asked some politically incorrect or downright illegal questions. In my experience, far more of these occurrences are well-intended questions by poorly trained interviewers, than the questions of bigots or malcontents that you would not want to work for in the first place.

More faux pas are possibly made during the casual conversation before the interview or in semi-casual exposures to the candidate over lunch or dinner, than actually occur during the interview, even in probing interviews.

Let's face it. Few interviewers out there are well trained in employment law and many times the best wording of a question can be down right counter intuitive to the untrained.

A person arriving at the interview with a Seeing Eye dog may trigger the obvious question, "Do you have any handicaps?" instead of the legal phraseology of, "Is there any reason you can not perform the normal duties of this job?" Even if the question is asked properly and the answer is, "I will be able to perform the job with reasonable accommodations", the employment decision must disregard the obvious handicap until after the offer, when the company can legally ask what accommodations are required and then determine, and be able to defend their decision of, reasonableness of the required accommodations.

Interview questions are illegal if they seek to classify applicants on categories protected under anti-discrimination laws, including race, national origin, religion, age, disability and, in some states, marital status and sexual orientation.

Interviewers can not ask candidates things about their private lives that have nothing to do with the job. For instance, asking prospective employees about their nationality or ancestry, how old they are, whether they're married, whether they're disabled or have health problems are all taboo because the inquiries have no direct bearing on the job.

As an applicant, you have the choice of handling the one time inappropriate question by answering it and letting it pass, or by finding a way to rephrase the question (or its intent) to a question that you are comfortable answering. The key to handling these situations, for both the interviewer and the candidate, is to steer the conversation to topics that are strictly work-related.

When asked an improper question about a candidate's childcare arrangements, the question may be answered with, "If you are wandering if I will be able to work late some nights during busy times, that will not be a problem".

It would take an interviewer with their head buried in the sand to ask an applicant their religion. It happens most often when the interviewer is really seeking the answer to, "is there any reason you would not be able to work an occasional Saturday if the job requires it".

Whatever the case, the correct response is not to get hysterical and protest, "You can't ask that question. That's illegal!" Not if you want any chance of getting the job. Besides, you are unlikely to be able to build a case against a company because of one stray question even if you are a "legalistic opportunist" and the question is grossly inappropriate.

Just because an illegal question has been asked does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed. Applicants who suspect they were not hired because of their response to illegal interview questions must prove that the company demonstrated a pattern of discrimination.

"Have you ever been arrested?" should be asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony". It has been judged that convictions may be sufficiently relevant while arrests may not be.

"How old are you?" is obviously out. "Are you over 18?" is about the only legal question left that can be asked about age.

"Are you a U.S. citizen?" can not be asked, while, "Are you authorized to accept full time, extended employment in the United States?" can be.

"What is your native language?" is out. If there would be an advantage in, or requirement for, the candidate speaking a specific language, that can be asked and even tested.

"What line of work is your husband in?" is typically trying to establish if this is a 'trailing spouse' situation, and whether she is likely to move with her husband's next transfer. Although this may be nice to know, the question is illegal. There are typically more important things to base the hiring decision on than that, anyway.

Companies must be prepared to risk expensive legal action if their interviewing or selection process crosses that line into private or protected information.

There are questions, and patterns of questions, that may be somewhat innocent but have resulted in settlements or orders to pay damages. The manager who asked an applicant several questions about his disability, was ordered to pay him $45,000. The manager had asked the job applicant how he became partially paralyzed, what treatment he received and how customers and co-workers dealt with his disability, and he was subsequently not hired.

$2 million was paid to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by workers offended by a 500-question test that included questions about their religious beliefs, bowel movements and sexual practices.

Inappropriate questions may turn out to be a red flag for the applicant. Do you want to work for a company that exposes the prospective employees to improperly trained decision-makers. You may not want to work for a company who's interviewers are ignorant of the law and don't care about the liability they are exposing your prospective employer to.