when an interviewer wants to talk to the candidate’s wife

by Alison Green on February 24, 2025

A reader writes:

My father-in-law was visiting over the weekend. He started talking about how my brother-in-law is job-hunting to escape new company ownership.

At one of my brother-in-law’s interviews, the employer asked to talk to his wife (my sister-in-law, who isn’t employed and cares for my three young nephews).

I was so surprised that I exclaimed, “They can’t do that!” Well, I guess my comment offended my father-in-law because he raised his voice and said back, “What do you mean they can’t do that?!”

I said what if the candidate was a single mom with kids? My father-in-law snapped at me, saying the employer wants to make sure that my brother-in-law’s wife “is on board.” (He missed my point that not everyone who works is a married man.) I dropped the conversation and said nothing more after that, because it wasn’t worth fighting over it in front of my daughter and husband.

So now I’m wondering, is it okay for an employer to ask to talk to “The Wife” before hiring? It seems very outdated to me. It’s like they want to know that she will agree to provide free childcare so my brother-in-law can work as many hours as the company wants.

It’s a very retro and outdated practice.

And I’d love to know whether they’re asking to talk to female candidates’ spouses, because I bet they’re not.

Some years back, I had an interesting conversation with Suzanne Lucas of Evil HR Lady about companies that ask to meet the whole family before offering a job that would involve moving to a new country (something Suzanne herself has done; she and her kids moved to Switzerland when her husband took a job there). She made a good argument for why it makes sense in that situation — the job won’t work out if the family is unhappy in the new country / doesn’t want to move — but that’s very different than interviewing for a job locally.

My guess is that the explanation is one of the following:

* Your brother-in-law is interviewing for a high-up executive role where his spouse will be expected to play more of a role in his career and/or the company is more-than-usually invested in the character of the executives they hire and think meeting his spouse will give them insight into whether they’d be comfortable having him as representing their company.

* The role is relatively senior and they want to make sure his spouse is on-board with what the demands of the role are expected to be. (Typically this is something that the company would convey to the candidate and let the candidate talk with their spouse about, but again — retro.)

* The company thinks of themselves as “family-oriented” and this is part of that.

In any case, it’s pretty weird, and your father-in-law sounds like a difficult in-law (not because he doesn’t find it weird, but because he took it personally to the point of snapping at you about it).

You may also like:
{ 195 comments }

{ 195 comments… read them below or add one }

    2. sambal*

      Yeah, that’s who came to mind for me too. He’s also famous for asking families for their budgets, too. Very, very icky.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mid*

        Ehhh…in his specific context, I can see it making sense and being less icky than it otherwise would be. Similar to how some finance and govt jobs require you to pass a credit check/show your finances are in an okay place.

        Reply ↓
        1. Work*

          I think passing a credit check is very different than providing your family budget. I would not want my employer passing judgment on how much I spend on streaming every year and could easily see a situation where an employer decides you don’t need a raise because you spend too much of your budget on “frivolous” or “unnecessary” items, not to mention more personal issues like prescription medications

          Reply ↓
          1. Audiophile*

            Seriously.

            I’ll never forget the time a crappy supervisor cut my hours without any warning even though I was full-time. When I said something, she told me I’d need to revise my budget to work within the hours she was giving me. Never mind, the fact that no one’s hours were consistent week-to-week as she continued to erratictly make changes to the schedule.

            Reply ↓
          2. WillowSunstar*

            That and sometimes people don’t want to tell their employer about all of their prescription medication, especially if it’s for something they want to keep private.

            Reply ↓
        2. Shutterdoula*

          No, it’s invasive and none of the company’s business. A generic credit check is much, much different than expecting to see the family’s detailed budget!

          Reply ↓
        3. Charlotte Lucas*

          I’ve had to do a credit check. That’s to make sure I’m not in such a bad place that I might be tempted to steal people’s identities

          Nobody needs to know how much money I spend on books and specialty flour per year.

          Reply ↓
        4. M2RB*

          Strongly disagree. I’m a CPA and have zero problem with someone pulling my credit report and running a background check to be sure I’m not a fraud risk – but it is nobody’s business how much I do or do not spend on yarn, cat supplies, travel, music, movies, or anything else. My budget is between my spouse and me – no one else.

          Reply ↓
      2. RagingADHD*

        I think discussing your budget with an employer that provides budgeting advice might be one of the less problematic thing that company does (such as firing employees for getting pregnant).

        Reply ↓
        1. Michelle Smith*

          I disagree. I think for people providing budget counseling, they can get enough information by giving them a sample client budget with fake numbers and have them walk through what they’d advise. I think for the receptionists, general counsel, IT, etc. – people not providing budget counseling – it’s entirely irrelevant.

          Reply ↓
      3. Artemesia*

        I have a lot of mixed feelings about Ramsey’s politics, religious nonsense and management practices BUT his financial advice is excellent for most people struggling with their finances and since the job is about advising people about how to budget, it seems reasonable to expect his employees to walk the walk and be willing to show that. A genuinely special case.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dog momma*

          I would agree with you but lately he’s been giving bad advice..imo& more importantly, has been very rude and contract to many of the callers

          Reply ↓
        2. Mio*

          > the job is about advising people about how to budget

          No, the company is. It’s not a religion, no, everyone there doesn’t have to walk the walk and live by his values. In fact, even for religious org, not every job is always reserved for religious people. Your argument can make sense for certain positions, like advisors, but there’s no valid reason for Dave Ramsey to pry into the personal budget of an editor, an accountant, an HR manager, a janitor, a secretary, an IT person, etc.

          Besides, he doesn’t just do it at his company. He recommends this practice to every business.

          Not to mention, prying into someone’s personal budget will give one access to a lot of sensitive information you aren’t supposed to ask and that increases the risk of discrimination.

          As an aside, not only do I agree with you on his non-financial positions, I also have problem with some of his financial advice. In particular, I find what he’s published about MLM unconscionable given his audience. But of course, he’s close to MLM leaders, so…

          Reply ↓
      1. Artemesia*

        A guy who thinks it is fine to consider the wife as a subordinate and a company having the right to manage a guy’s marriage i.e. a deep seated patriarchal misogynist is naturally going to treat his DIL as if she were not an actual person and had no right to respect in her own home (his son’s home that is and it is his job to help keep her in line.)

        Reply ↓
  3. Long Time Lurker*

    I actually went through this as a spouse, but very informally — my husband had just gotten a promotion that would likely take us to a faraway state within a few months, and his boss was in Then Current City and invited him and me out to dinner, along with some other co-workers and their guests. While we were out with them the boss asked me “what do you think about this possible move? How would that affect your job?” and a few other questions. Obviously my husband and I had already discussed this so I had answers, but I got the impression that the boss was just checking that it was okay with me. I thought it was smart, but it wasn’t a formal thing — it was just something that came up when we met (though I think part of the reason he wanted to meet me was to get a feel for how I felt about the move)

    Reply ↓
    1. The Starsong Princess*

      Yes, in my company, they want to meet with the spouse when someone is asked to relocate to head office to make sure they are onboard. They often will try to sell the spouse on the move – here’s the relocation help we offer, here’s a community of potential friends etc. But overall, that’s in decline.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sparkles McFadden*

      This sounds more like Alison’s example. Though it’s not international, moving is involved, and it makes sense to make sure everyone who has to move feels OK about it. Plus, as you mention, it wasn’t a formal thing. It’s not like The Boss said “I need to schedule a meeting with your wife.” It was “Let’s all have dinner and discuss this while I’m in town.” which is a friendly thing to do.

      Reply ↓
      1. Curious*

        While the packaging is different, I think that the substance is the same. This seems similar to the fact that when they take you to lunch or dinner during an interview, that is in fact part of the interview.

        Reply ↓
    3. Long Time Lurker*

      I should add he was at the company for a long time (still is, actually) and I had met his boss before, and being included in something like a dinner or drinks after meetings is common in his company. That would have felt different if it was out of the blue, I think.

      Reply ↓
    4. Sloanicota*

      Wow, I’d be so uncomfortable with this. It seems too intrusive to the marriage to me. And what, if the spouse isn’t enthused, they can unilaterally sink the candidate’s prospects? If a prospect wants to divorce their spouse and move away, would that exclude them from consideration?

      Reply ↓
      1. Long Time Lurker*

        Reading the comments on the original post I definitely see that — but at the time, I have to say I appreciated that his boss cared enough to ask me how the move would affect me. But obviously that is fraught for a million reasons, as you point out.

        Reply ↓
      2. Beth*

        I think an invite to a group dinner is really different than an interview request. It’s hard to say no to an interview request–there’s really not a lot to fall back on other than “I don’t want you to talk to them,” which is awkward. But a dinner invite, at a set date/time, which includes several people and is based on the boss’s travel plans? All you need to say is “Spouse unfortunately can’t make it but I’ll be there.” It’s a lot less pressure and a lot easier to put off.

        Reply ↓
      3. Nonym*

        > And what, if the spouse isn’t enthused, they can unilaterally sink the candidate’s prospects? If a prospect wants to divorce their spouse and move away, would that exclude them from consideration?

        That was my thought as well. It’s inappropriate, gives excessive power to the candidate’s spouse, and is rife with risk of unconscious biais playing a role.

        Your employer shouldn’t ask your spouse’s permission to offer you a job, much less interview them – formally or informally.

        Some people may be willing to take a job even if their partner isn’t on board, including even if it results in a divorce. That’s their choice.

        And I say this as someone who has taken a position abroad and would have declined if my partner hadn’t been on board. My husband had to quit and it took him a year to find something in our new country, which was the average it took for my colleagues’ spouses too. So I do understand the impact of an international move.

        Reply ↓
    5. A non-mouse*

      I had a similar thing happen when my husband was being recruited for a fairly senior position – we flew to the city where the company was based and the CEO took us out to dinner. In our case, my husband played the “well my wife might not be onboard with all the changes we’d need in our lives to make it work” card to hedge and preserve the option to decline the role while preserving the professional relationship, and I was able to ask questions at the dinner that my husband wasn’t able to ask as directly. It worked in our favor – I was able to ask a question that made it clear to us that this wasn’t a role we wanted to consider for our family, and my husband kept a positive working relationship with the CEO/company.

      Reply ↓
    6. HonorBox*

      Handling it casually makes a lot of sense. I’m supportive of that. But calling the spouse separately is a bit too far.

      Reply ↓
    7. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, if they are going to be a trailing spouse, find out if they’re aware of all the changes that will come into their lives, especially if moving to somewhere with a different language. Mention what help you can give and ask what else they need.
      Also, are they enthusiastic, lukewarm or being dragooned by their spouse

      Reply ↓
  5. Brian*

    As a gay male living in the south, I have been asked personal questions about my family in past interviews. It always created a really tricky and uncomfortable dynamic for me.

    Reply ↓
    1. Vio*

      I would love to think that was unintentional, but sadly I suspect that in some cases that is exactly the reason they like to ask. See: Things Nobody Should Be Ashamed Of But Some Idiots Want To Stigmatise Anyway (While Being Unashamed Of The Prejudice They Should Be Ashamed Of)

      Reply ↓
    2. Alicent*

      I lived in the South for a while as a cishet single female and my boss asked me to go to church with him because OBVIOUSLY I needed help finding a new one when I moved. I had to sidestep that carefully and it wasn’t the only time I had major problems.

      Reply ↓
      3. Ally McBeal*

        My best friend (cishet white female) lives in a major Southern city and works for that city’s government. She knows – not assumes, knows – that her career would be in a better place if she weren’t an atheist even though she’s in a government job. There’s no escaping the question “where do you go to church?” and “I don’t” isn’t an answer you can give without consequences. I spent my adolescence in the same city and got out (of the city, of the South) as quickly as I could, even though (unlike her) I was a practicing Christian until just a couple years ago.

        Reply ↓
      4. Artemesia*

        I did my career in the south and I can’t count the times I got asked if we had gotten ‘churched yet’ and were reassured we would feel at home once we were ‘churched.’

        Reply ↓
        1. Seashell*

          I’ve told my husband that I don’t want to retire anywhere that people ask questions like that. It’s a totally foreign experience to me, since I live an area with plenty of non-Christians and non-religious people.

          Reply ↓
    3. not nice, don't care*

      Nothing says ‘I quit’ like a boss referring to my ‘special friend’, repeatedly, in the case of my corrections.

      Reply ↓
  6. Jennie*

    Sometime circa the late 1970s/early 1980s, my dad was asked to bring his family with him when he interviewed for jobs out of state. The “women of the office” all talked with my mom while the “men folk” interviewed my dad. As for me, they left me in the corner with a coloring book munching on a fancy chocolate they gave me that was from a box given to the staff for “secretary’s day”. – I was warned to be on my “very best behavior” because we wanted to “make Daddy proud” and help him get this great new job.

    Reply ↓
    1. Anonym*

      My grandmother was informally interviewed at a party that grandfather’s boss hosted – she didn’t realize until afterward, but he was up for a promotion to an executive role and apparently they wanted to know if he had sufficient partnership at home to take it on. Apparently her being intelligent, competent and supportive was part of why he got the role? Very interesting, and also very much occurred in the 1960s. I can sort of understand the desire to know, but a) privacy and b) assumptions about people’s personal lives and gender and gender roles and c) appropriate boundaries. Nowadays and for so many good reasons, it’s red flags galore.

      Though I do understand more in cases of international moves with a family. I’d still be put off by a request to talk to my spouse.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Back in the old days I think spouses were expected to play kind of a secretary role to their husbands, TBH. At least in some fields. And there were probably bored educated women who’d be eager to do it. I think even now in the military and the church (weirdly those two are the two that come to mind), senior leader’s spouses are expected to do a good amount of hosting and community work.

        Reply ↓
        1. JSPA*

          Entertaining business contacts and clients at home was a thing! I remember as a small child eating in my bedroom (hot dogs and fries, a special treat, as a bribe to be quiet), because there were clients coming for dinner.

          Reply ↓
          1. Milltown*

            I feel like there are episodes of, say, I Love Lucy, the Flintstones, and/or the Jetsons (as well as a parody of them in WandaVision) that involve the Big Boss coming over for dinner and if the wife doesn’t cook a good meal the husband’s promotion will get tanked or he’ll even be fired. Which are played for laughs because obviously something goes wrong with the food and Lucy etc needs to cover it up and act like everything’s fine.

            I feel like even watching them on reruns as a child I thought that was wild. Lucy’s meatloaf is overcooked so Ricky would lose his job??

            Reply ↓
          2. WillowSunstar*

            I remember in the 80’s we had people from my dad’s job come to dinner at our house. As a young girl, I was required to either wear a skirt or a dress. (No makeup though, I wasn’t old enough for makeup.) Since I was the shy kind of kid and not the rambunctious sort, was allowed to go to my room after dinner and read. No TV allowed on those nights since the adults were talking in the living room.

            Interesting how times have changed.

            Reply ↓
        2. Smithy*

          Yes – I also think of foreign service spouses. In my old job, I used to need to attend a number of embassy parties a year – and there were just always an interesting variety of traveling spouses and what they did with their time. You could always tell the ones who went to every party to really work the room that it was their way to do something substantive with their time.

          Those types of jobs have those tasks and opportunities a bit more bluntly baked into them, but I always found it fascinating to see how different people approached the traveling spouse role.

          Reply ↓
          1. Angstrom*

            I had older ex-foreign service relatives. back then, the wife’s “performance” at embassy social functions was part of the husband’s annual performance evaluations.

            Reply ↓
          2. Applesauced*

            We probably wouldn’t have Julia Child without the “trailing spouse” thing!

            She (highly educated and a whole person in her own right) was in Paris because he husband was a member of the foreign service and she took cooking classes (after having also served in government positions across the world).

            Reply ↓
          3. Foreign Service Babe*

            I thought of this, too. I’ve been in the Foreign Service ~15 years. And while there is a lot of workplace advice about ensuring your family is onboard, they [officially] trust us to handle this without their intervention. In one of my early tours, I had a boss who liked to invite spouses to the initial courtesy call on the employee’s first day of work. The tone of it started out as inclusive, i.e. “we’re so happy to have you here; we’re serious about making sure spouses integrate well into the embassy community.” But it ended up with a “this is what we expect of you/don’t screw this up for your spouse” kind of vibe. Plus there was some ethnic/gender normativity to which I specifically took offense, i.e. “I know it may be easier for you to make friends with locals as opposed to embassy personnel, but I need you to make the effort to be a real American.” As soon as my husband left the room, I informed the Ambassador that there would be no more of that. I do not need my employer to assert itself in my marriage, thanks.

            Reply ↓
        3. iglwif*

          My late father was a tenure-track (later tenured) professor when he married my mom in the early 1970s. For a while he was head of his department. It was absolutely considered part of the job to host dinner parties in your home with colleagues, visiting professors, etc., and my mom absolutely did 99% of the work to make that happen.

          Fortunately for my father, my mom is the most extroverted person in the universe and absolutely loves this kind of stuff. It actually took me a long time to work out that a lot of the dinner parties of my early childhood were Professional Obligations, because my mom loves to entertain and kept on doing it, though with a slightly different rotation of guests, long after she yeeted my father. [I will not go into the reasons here but believe me, the yeeting was entirely justified.] I helped her make so many dinner parties, Thanksgiving gatherings, seders, holiday dinners, NYE parties, etc. when I was growing up that to this day people see me in action at a large gathering and say “I can tell you worked as a server when you were young!” (I did not.)

          In those days there were some women faculty, and certainly lots of women getting PhDs as my mom nearly did, but the majority were still men and the entertaining was all done by the women.

          Reply ↓
        4. Nobby Nobbs*

          I wouldn’t be surprised if it were in pretty steep decline in churches too, given that most of the pastors’ spouses I know are also pastors.

          Reply ↓
        5. MigraineMonth*

          My aunt’s grave marker reads The best Navy wife. I have extremely mixed feelings about it.

          The thing about “women’s work” is that I’m angry when it’s overlooked *and* angry when it’s praised. Changing diapers, vacuuming or hosting dinners for the admiralty aren’t sacred callings, stop waxing poetic and *pay someone* to do them.

          Reply ↓
    2. Chauncy Gardener*

      My grandmother went to numerous dinners while my grandfather (high level engineer) was being courted by Honeywell and Raytheon et al. But this was in the 40’s and 50’s!
      Not to mention that some of the dinners were at places where generally women were only allowed as guests of men, not women alone or just with other women….
      Yeah.

      Reply ↓
      1. Chauncy Gardener*

        Plus, we’re all pretty sure that my other grandfather didn’t make admiral because, and I do mean this accurately, my grandmother was a HUGE b—h to everyone

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          If my spouse’s job expected me to do the amount of unpaid labor expected of an admiral’s wife, I’d be a bitch too.

          Reply ↓
  7. Jennifer Strange*

    My father-in-law snapped at me, saying the employer wants to make sure that my brother-in-law’s wife “is on board.” (He missed my point that not everyone who works is a married man.)

    Oh, I don’t think he missed it. I think he’s specifically commenting on what type of person he thinks is deserving of a job like this.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      “No, honey, this is a BIG BOY job, they want to hire a man with exactly the right kind of woman behind him.”

      Reply ↓
    2. My Name is Jonas*

      Yeah, it’s weird that the FIL is basically sticking up for the idea that his son can’t be relied upon to relay to his wife and the mother of his children what the new job might entail for her.

      Reply ↓
    3. Kay*

      In fairness, I don’t think that the point of this argument *should* be that not everyone who works is a married man. Well, at least not the focal point, but, waves hand and mumbles something about the state of the world we are currently living in…

      And I absolutely agree that he didn’t miss any of the possible points of the OPs argument.

      Reply ↓
    6. Beth*

      This is my read too. It’s not that he doesn’t know there are women in the workforce–or gay people, or single dads, or people with spouses who work full-time and don’t want to take time off to interview with their spouse’s prospective employer (what a weird reason to use PTO!), or etc. It’s that he thinks the priority in the workplace *should* be straight married men who are the breadwinner for their family, and whose wives need to be ‘on board’ because they’ll be a key support figure in their husbands’ careers. And he doesn’t like being challenged on that.

      Reply ↓
  9. Ugh*

    Besides this being a bizarrely sexist practice, it can break up a marriage. What if the wife IS on board, but doesn’t reply as enthusiastically as the employer expects, or says that she hopes to return to work soon. Then the husband doesn’t get the job. He’ll blame his wife. They could literally divorce over this. If it’s a high-salary position, he could go ballistic on her, blaming her for it. I could see a job non-offer resulting in a violent reaction at home, because there’s no way he’s going think he was rejected due to his own shortcomings.

    Also, suppose the couple is having marital trouble, and the wife expresses something to that effect, and he doesn’t get the job? Wow, this is the reddest of red flags.

    Reply ↓
    1. JSPA*

      Red flag reality check: if there’s a potential for abuse, that red flag sits with the borderline/almost abuser. Not the outside world.

      There will always be sub-optimum situations in life. Exactly none of them excuse “going ballistic.”

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        Very true.

        Also, if not getting a job offer breaks up your marriage, it was on pretty shaky foundations to begin with.

        Reply ↓
    2. Kay*

      Another plot twist – what if the marriage was already broken up and the husband wanted to escape an abusive marriage and doesn’t want her to know? There are so many reasons this is just so so gross.

      Reply ↓
    3. RagingADHD*

      Marriages don’t actually break up over things like this. A functional marriage is not going to be filled with blame or hostility like that. And dysfunctional marriages break up because they are inherently unworkable – external circumstances are merely a pretext.

      That doesn’t make it a good policy. But any marriage that would end over “not being enthusiastic enough” probably should have ended several years earlier anyway.

      Reply ↓
  10. JSPA*

    Or the illegal (but who knows for how long) options of

    a) making sure the partner is the opposite sex

    b) making sure there is a partner

    c) guessing as to the hypothetical partner’s ethnicity / background

    d) figuring out if the partner also works, to suss out whether the prospective employee will likely have “family duties” that can’t be shoved off on a spouse

    Then there’s always, “we hire based on what went wrong with the last person in the role,” which isn’t at all illegal, but might be a yellow flag.

    Regardless, a bland, “they’re not available right now, can you tell me what you’d need to know, and I’ll pass it along?” would probably be a good, non-confrontational solution.

    Reply ↓
    1. Mrs. Pommeroy*

      Yes to all of that.
      “Figuring out if the spouse is on board with it” is one explanation that nicely covers a number of questionable or even outright illegal sins.

      Reply ↓
  11. BigLawEx*

    This is one of those a-ha moments. In large law firms, candidates are often encouraged to bring their significant others to dinners during recruitment periods. When I was graduating, law schools were still predominantly male (my class was 70/30 male/female). Medicine was the same for my friends back then. As I sit here all these decades later, I never thought about why it happened….

    Reply ↓
    1. Kelly L.*

      Yeah, I mostly remember it as something that came up in The Firm, a book published in 1991, and the characters thinking it was kind of retro *then*! It would not surprise me if this job was with good ol’ boy lawyers.

      Reply ↓
    2. Scarper*

      Your split was 70/30 for males? Interesting. Nationally, in 2023, 55% of all law school graduates were women. If you add them up, from 2019 through 2023, there were 12,175 more women awarded JD degrees than men. (From the ABA.)

      For the 2023-24 academic year, 72% of U.S. medical schools graduated more female than male MDs. (From Adtalem)

      Reply ↓
      1. JSPA*

        Surely it’s no surprise that decades ago (as per BigLawEx’s post, this is looking back “all these decades later”) this was not the case?

        All these decades to my mind implies at least 4, maybe 5 or 6.

        In 1970, the most “mixed” schools achieved 30%. In 1975, the national average of women students was 30%. In 1980, the average was closing in on 40%, but with a large standard deviation. In 1985, the lower tail still included some few schools at 30%.

        If BigLawEx graduated law school between (say) 1973 and 1983, a 70/30 split would have been entirely unremarkable.

        Link to follow.

        Reply ↓
      4. MigraineMonth*

        It’s surprising, isn’t it, how things change over the decades? And yet, at the upper levels, how they always seem to stay the same…

        Reply ↓
      5. Looper*

        Graduating from law school and practicing law are not the same thing. Only 60% of all law school grads practice law afterwards, so it would not surprise me to see that while more women are graduating law school, there are fewer getting hired into firms.

        Reply ↓
      6. PhysicsForGurrrrrrrls*

        FWIW, my graduating class of physics majors in the 90s was 94% male. My grad school class was 89% male. Med schools and law schools were already a lot closer to parity, but hard sciences were still really skewed.

        Reply ↓
  12. Curdeatin’ Cheezehead*

    Could also be a job (like clfederally adjacent or civilian but working at a military facility) where a clearance is required…depending on the level of clearance, they may want to interview family members, neighbors, etc (as well as pulling a credit report and doing a background check). That said, usually those jobs inform you from the beginning that a security clearance is required and they don’t just randomly ask to speak to “the wife” (as you put it) out of the blue.
    It’s kind of odd that your father in law immediately took offense, rather than simply explaining (as Alison did) that there are some rare circumstances where that might be done. I’m sorry he was such a jerk about it.

    Reply ↓
    2. Parrhesia25*

      Not going to volunteer how I know but if a spouse needs to get a security clearance due to their partner’s job they will just interview the spouse for a security clearance, which is different from expecting them to be a plus-one at a job interview.

      Reply ↓
    3. Anon for this one*

      If a spouse is talked to as part of the clearance process, which is not universal, an interview with the company is not the way it will happen. It will be Nice People In Suits from a three-letter agency.

      Reply ↓
  13. Bunch Harmon*

    It’s also very common with clergy positions, especially when there’s a rectory and the candidate’s family will live on-site. Or is the candidate’s spouse (read:wife) will be expected to provide unpaid labor for Sunday school, church suppers, etc.

    Reply ↓
    2. Rocket Raccoon*

      My dad is a minister, hiring him and my mom was always just that – hiring a pair of people for a pair of positions. Sometimes my mom was paid separately, sometimes it was one check, but it was always clear that both spouses were expected to work in specific roles.

      If a clergy candidate was unmarried, they would simply hire an unrelated person for the support position.

      Reply ↓
        1. Mid*

          Organist, teacher, secretary, music director, choir director, assistant, lots of different job titles (and job duties.)

          Reply ↓
        2. Librarian of Things*

          Music minister, youth minister, associate pastor, education coordinator. I’m sure there are as many options as there are churches with married clergy. Associate pastor was big where I grew up.

          Reply ↓
        3. Rocket Raccoon*

          Program Director, most commonly, or Community Director. In the older days something like Women’s Society President or Sunday School Director.

          Reply ↓
    3. Parrhesia25*

      While being in a clergy family has its own challenges, the expectation for unpaid labor from the clergy’s spouse has diminished. For one thing, the financial reality of ministry makes it likely that the spouse will need to work for pay. Also, there is a heightened expectation of professionalism and no longer the assumption that a minister’s spouse will have the qualifications to do the work.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nobby Nobbs*

        I suspect the fact that many pastors’ spouses these days tend to have a very particular job, and that job tends to keep one pretty busy on Sunday mornings, might have something to do with it too…

        Reply ↓
  14. ImAtWork*

    “And I’d love to know whether they’re asking to talk to female candidates’ spouses, because I bet they’re not.”

    Female candidates? What female candidates?

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      Even if the company has an excellent reason for meeting the spouse, (like I don’t know what that would be but let’s just be open minded) news of this going round would definitely deter anyone who isn’t a straight, married male. Women usually have already worked for that company where they’re trying to figure out when/if you have kids and why that means you shouldn’t be promoted. I’m sure this would go down like a lead balloon with gay candidates. Maybe that’s the point but it’s horrifying how often people just don’t think.

      Reply ↓
    2. Probably Should be Anon Here*

      I agree that Alison is being very generous in assuming that there are female candidates, based on what we know about the employer. If there are, I doubt they’re being given any serious consideration.

      Reply ↓
    3. pally*

      I’m sure they have female candidates.

      The interview with the spouse includes asking if the candidate has his permission to hold down a job. No woman’s 1970’s style job-seeking experience is complete without such questions.

      Reply ↓
  15. Ann O'Nemity*

    The only time I’ve seen companies ask to meet the spouse involved relocation. In those cases, the candidate would be uprooting their entire life, so the company wanted a chance to woo the spouse too.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cease and D6*

      Yeah, I’ve occasionally heard of this in relocation-heavy jobs like academia as well. But the crucial difference here is that the spouse is not being *interviewed*, they’re being given the opportunity to ask questions that might be pertinent to their individual future prospects (eg. prospects for their own careers in the area).

      That’s a very different situation from one in which the spouse is being tested or judged in some way.

      Reply ↓
      1. TK*

        Yeah, I’m in academia and faculty positions usually have full day or longer interviews that include multiple restaurant meals. Some departments ask candidates if they’d like to bring their spouse/partner along for one of the meals (like a dinner at the end of the day). Since these positions almost always involve relocation, it’s common for spouses to be along anyway to get to know the city.

        Of course, this is always optional on the candidates’ part and it’s totally gender-neutral. I’ve heard rumors that for high-level positions (like VPs and deans) the university is basically mandating that committees offer this opportunity to candidates because we recently lost someone for a high-level position primarily because the candidate’s spouse didn’t want to move here. So it gives them an opportunity to interact with the search committee and ask questions too.

        Reply ↓
        1. not nice, don't care*

          At my workplace we have ‘dual career assistance’ which allows spouses of certain new hires to bump other folks for new positions.

          Reply ↓
        2. Quill*

          And when both partners are in academia the process may also be considering spousal hires, aka can we get a two for one deal with Tangerina in Astrophysics and Waukeen in Classics.

          Reply ↓
          1. TK*

            Yeah, although more often it’s like “astrophysics really wants Tangerina so classics will reluctantly take Waukeen even though he isn’t really what they’re looking for.”

            Reply ↓
        3. AFac*

          At my school, this doesn’t happen until after an offer is made to a candidate. So at least on the school’s end, the choice has already been made before talking to the spouse, and it’s up to the candidate + spouse to learn about the place and decide whether to accept.

          We have had candidates decline offers because their spouse didn’t want to move, quit their job, etc. Sometimes it does feel like we wasted our time, but it’s never occurred to us to bring the spouse in at the interview stage. We have had candidates ask questions on behalf of their spouse, but that’s topic they bring up, not us.

          Reply ↓
      2. Sloanicota*

        Academia is the only place it makes sense to me as it’s the only place I’ve ever heard of with a “trailing spouse” tradition.

        Reply ↓
        1. Magpie*

          The military and foreign service have trailing spouse traditions as well. In the foreign service, there’s a lot of support for trailing spouses to make sure they’re happy and integrated into the community because there’s a concern that trailing spouses who get too lonely in their new country are susceptible to becoming friendly with bad actors who might use them for espionage.

          Reply ↓
      3. Samwise*

        If they’re asking questions, they’re also answering them. They are being observed and evaluated.

        My dissertation director told me that every single minute of the on-campus interview is part of the interview. Faculty member picks you up at the airport/takes you back to the airport? part of the interview. Getting a tour of campus from a student? part of the interview. Getting a coffee with junior faculty? part of the interview. Chatting with the admins? most definitely part of the interview. Going to dinner with members of the department and your spouse/partner? part of the interview for you AND your spouse/partner.

        Reply ↓
        1. Cease and D6*

          Yeah, my advisors also told me that. And it’s certainly true that even when a committee is not trying to judge the spouse, they inevitably will end up doing so a little. That’s not even completely unreasonable – if the spouse seems like they’d cause problems for the department (eg. they turn up to the dinner high as a kite and start insulting people) – you might want the committee to be able to react to that.
          But there’s still a major difference between going into a meeting to judge someone and to inform them. Think about it this way – if a candidate were otherwise great but their spouse wasn’t as pleasant or interesting as a different candidate’s spouse, that would never be a deciding factor against the candidate.

          Reply ↓
          1. TK*

            Especially since relocation is a big thing… you may meet a spouse at dinner and get the sense from the conversation that they really aren’t keen on relocating to your location.

            Reply ↓
            1. Cease and D6*

              Yeah. That’s an unfortunate case, though. I think most people would have trouble setting the appropriate level of enthusiasm before they’ve actually seen the full details of the offer, which is typically the case at this stage of an academic interview. I think my spouse would be a lot more enthusiastic for a move and a lot of money than for a move and a little bit!
              And in general, judging enthusiasm like that seems like a practice that’s going to closely track biases of all kinds. Not everyone demonstrates interest in the same way.

              Reply ↓
        2. Nonym*

          Agreed. If you want to make it solely for the sake of the candidate and their family’s sake, then set-up that opportunity *after* you extend an irrevocable offer.

          Reply ↓
      4. UKDancer*

        Yes one of my friends was offered a fairly high powered job overseas and the company offered her husband a chance to come and visit and tour so he could ask questions and see about it. It was one of their standard suggestions for people taking these jobs.

        It wasn’t a requirement and if she hadn’t had a spouse or partner she could have declined. Apparently it was a thing they did to ensure the transition and move was a smooth one.

        I’ve worked abroad myself and I can see trailing spouses often find it hard. I worked in Brussels for a while and at least 2 of my expat colleagues had spouses return home because they couldn’t settle and one colleague had a marriage implode rather messily. So I think in those circumstances it doesn’t hurt.

        Reply ↓
  16. Glengarry Glenn Close*

    The only times I’ve seen this have been when it’s clergy or a big relocation.

    Well…did your sister-in-law give the green light??

    Reply ↓
  17. Chocoholic*

    Not exactly the same thing, but my mother tells a story about interviewing for a job back in the late 60’s or early 70’s and at some point in the process, they asked her what my dad’s salary was.

    When she asked why that was relevant, the answer was that they didn’t want to damage my dad’s ego by paying her more than he was paid. She had a Master’s Degree that he didn’t have and more experience than he did, and he worked in a completely different type of role.

    Reply ↓
    1. Jennifer Strange*

      Seems like a trick question, because if you say your spouse makes $100k (whether it’s true or not) then it becomes “Oh, he makes enough to support you, so you don’t need a big salary here!”

      Reply ↓
    2. Turtlewings*

      Good grief. As if a non-employee’s ego was any of their concern or any of their business, anyway. I’m weirdly reminded of the woman featured here at some point, who refused to call a trans coworker by their* new name “out of respect for their mother” who had originally named them. As if respecting some stranger she’d never met and never would was more important than respecting her actual coworker.

      *I can’t remember the trans coworker’s pronouns

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonym*

        That is WILD. I’ve heard versions of it before, and every time am so taken aback by the obviousness of “and I respect this theoretical person I’ve never met more than I respect YOU.” Flabbergasting.

        Reply ↓
      2. Hlao-roo*

        The letter Turtlewings is referring to is “my employee keeps getting deadnamed by a coworker” from August 27, 2020 (with an update on December 1, 2020). I highly recommend reading both!

        (The trans coworker, “John” in the letter, uses he/him pronouns.)

        Reply ↓
    3. Delta Delta*

      When I was in college I applied for a sales position at a family-owned shoe store. the very old man owner asked me what my father does for work. I asked him what difference that made to my ability to sell shoes.

      I did not get that job.

      Reply ↓
    4. not nice, don't care*

      I was interviewed for a position in county gov, only to be told that ‘jobs like these’ were for men with families. This was in 2003.

      Reply ↓
    1. Jennifer Strange*

      Don’t be ridiculous. They’re not going to ask to talk to someone’s “mommy.”

      They’re going to ask to talk to his daddy!

      Reply ↓
  19. Gherman*

    We do a dialed back version of this (for ALL genders!) when we’re nearing the offer stage for out-of-state clinicians. We hire surgeons and are in a rural area. We’ve had doctors move from NYC to our rural area because they can buy a huge house for what they make in a month (instead of ridiculous city housing costs) and we have great outdoor recreation options.

    We have lost several surgeons when their spouse and/or children don’t like outdoorsy stuff and miss the culture and activities of the big city post-move. Before someone uproots their whole life, we want the family to come to the area and meet their potential fellow surgeons/leadership, meet with a realtor, talk about schools, etc. We only do this when we anticipate making an offer, though, and it is NOT required.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hlao-roo*

      This sounds like one of the cases where it makes sense–a relocation to a different state and from an urban area to a rural one is in a similar class to an international move in terms of culture change.

      Reply ↓
    2. Ama*

      When I worked at a university in NYC we did the same for the opposite reason – living with a family in the NYC area requires choices you don’t need to make in most US college towns and the school system in particular can be hard to navigate. A coworker of mine actually headed a special office at the university to help faculty families understand their education options and she met with every candidate that made it to the in person interview – either with or without their spouse (their choice). Some people did end up withdrawing when they realized how much their lifestyle would have to change.

      That said, the hiring committees weren’t included in these meetings and my coworker didn’t share anything discussed with candidates with them so it truly was completely separate from the decision about who was offered the job.

      Reply ↓
      1. iglwif*

        living with a family in the NYC area requires choices you don’t need to make in most US college towns and the school system in particular can be hard to navigate.

        Really curious what this means! What kinds of choices? Other than the fact that real estate / rent is expensive, what are the “lifestyle changes” in moving to NYC that people object to?

        What makes the school system hard to navigate? Is it not the normal “live in this catchment area, go to this school” that obtains in most places?

        Reply ↓
        1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

          Nobody said object. They said different choices than in a college town.

          Whether to keep/sell your car, whether it is worth paying for parking in a lot/on street/in a covered garage, whether you want a house/condo/apartment, whether you will rent/buy said space, how long of a commute you are willing to put up with, whether you can deal with all the city noise… I could go on.

          And that’s before schools, which I know nothing about.

          Reply ↓
          1. iglwif*

            I phrased it that way because Ama said “Some people did end up withdrawing when they realized how much their lifestyle would have to change.”

            That’s an interesting set of choices that would never occur to me as applying only to NYC. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “college town” — that’s not a term we use in Canada — so maybe I am wildly off base here, but apart from “whether it is worth paying for parking” (absolutely not), those all sound like the exact same set of choices you would face in any place you were considering moving to.* “All the city noise”? Do other cities in the US not have noise?

            * “Whether to keep/sell your car” is a weird way to say “whether or not you need a car”, but it is still a choice you would need to make no matter where you were moving to.

            Reply ↓
        2. Beth*

          I lived in Manhattan for several years and would love to move back. I loved it. Walking/taking transit everywhere instead of having a car, having food and convenience stores available at all hours, seeing every new exhibit at the Met or MOMA, buying fabric in the garment district, being a 20 minute train ride from all sorts of exciting shows and restaurants, going to gallery shows and university lectures, stumbling across a random opera performance in Central Park…it was great. If I was only thinking about myself, I would go back in a heartbeat.

          But moving to Manhattan (or anywhere within 2 metro transfers of it) would be a huge sacrifice for my family. We’re too settled in our ways for roommates, and the space we’d be able to afford on our own would be too small for us. We cook a lot more than I did when I was in my 2os and need at least a moderate-sized kitchen. My partner has hobbies that need a workshop (like a garage or finished basement, not a desk in a spare room). We have a dog who loves hanging out in the yard. We want a big enough couch to have a few friends over for movie nights. My partner has trouble sleeping if it’s too loud at night. I don’t want to ask them to give all of that up.

          There are places in the NYC metro area where we could afford the space and lifestyle that my family needs, of course. But they’d be a long commute to the inner city. I’d be able to get in for a special occasion, but it wouldn’t get me the daily-life lifestyle I miss. And it seems stupid to uproot us for the sake of a move that wouldn’t even get me what I want. So, we’re not moving back.

          I imagine anyone debating taking a job at, say, Columbia or NYU would have to deal with that same debate. Is it worth changing your entire lifestyle to live there? Is it worth having a long commute to live in a more suburban part of the NYC metro area? Or is it not worth taking the role, given what you’d have to give up?

          Reply ↓
    3. Spaypets*

      Yes, this. I worked alongside people who were recruiting physicians for rural, sometimes very rural, hospitals. Everyone needs to be enthusiastic.

      Too many people leave because the spouse dislikes the area.

      Reply ↓
  20. Burnt Out Librarian*

    If my fiancé’s employer asked to speak to me, I’d have to wonder out loud if they’re looking to fill a second position, or if they think I might be better qualified than he is… But then again, Mr. Burnt Out Librarian is also a librarian. ;)

    A lot of the world seems to be amidst a time-warp back to the 1950s.

    Reply ↓
  21. Will's Mom*

    Not really related to this post, but I remember the olden days where I was asked if I was pregnant, and, if not, was I planning to have any more children. I can guarantee that my husband was never asked about if he was planning on more children.

    Reply ↓
  22. Bad Wolf*

    This happens in academia. It’s pretty common for university to fly out final round candidate and spouse. Candidate will have meetings and presentations spanning several days while an admin will organize things for spouse to do to get to know local housing market, job opportunities, schools, etc. At some point there will be a dinner that spouse will join.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ex-academic*

      Hm, in the hiring I’ve seen (2 state institutions in the US Midwest), the spouse trip comes after an offer is made to make it clear that it’s NOT part of the offer whether you have a spouse, what their gender is, what their job is, etc. I’d have been very uncomfortable rolling into the finalist interviews.

      Reply ↓
      1. Bad Wolf*

        In my experience, and my father’s 20 years earlier, it was always rolled into a single trip. Institutions in NY, MD, GA, CA, CO, and others (dad did a lot of hopping around). I did this once without a spouse, and they just made room in my schedule to check out the town on my own.

        Reply ↓
    2. Ann*

      VERY unusual at this point for a spouse to be included in the campus visit because of the expense and potential for conscious or unconscious discrimination.

      Reply ↓
  23. CubeFarmer*

    Oh hell no! I’ve never heard of this, and I would be very, very uncomfortable (as both the applicant and the spouse,) to step into something like this.

    It’s giving me John Grisham’s “The Firm” vibes.

    Reply ↓
  24. Liz the Snackbrarian*

    Definitely feels like a dated practice to me. Also I feel for LW, as it sounds like her father-in-law shares such views, and is also short-tempered.

    Reply ↓
  25. edj3*

    This happened years ago with my now ex-husband. The job was a big change for him, into outside sales with a 9-state territory. He was expected and indeed was gone at least 5 days a week, sometimes 6.

    They interviewed both of us twice–first round was in our current city. The second round, they flew us to the company headquarters for a two day visit. They really did want to make sure I knew what we were getting into.

    I joke that I think the marriage lasted longer than it should have precisely because of that heavy, heavy travel schedule.

    Reply ↓
  27. Viki*

    So! From second hand experience-aka my partner’s best friend, who is a rising Partner in a Big Firm, there is a lot of pressure to make sure the family [read Spouse] represents the right way to clients because there are a lot of dinner/golf deals where things get closed and Spouse may be present.

    This gives me and my Spouse the ick, but Best Friend and our other Best Friend (who also works in an adjacent field) both say this is a norm for their Big Finance/BioTech Firms in the level they are at, and have filled in as each other’s default partners when they need to bring someone to a dinner or else it will be bad optically. I will say that in my role in Tech leadership, my spouse was never asked about besides the “how are they?” but also I’m not aiming for C-Suite so perhaps it is different.

    From Best Friend, this is something that is asked of both men and women, and moving to Partner specifically, means this has been something that has been discussed between Spouses as there are some other less fun stuff that would affect their life (on call 24/7, last minute global travel or travel to random states etc.)

    Reply ↓
  28. Charming Kitten*

    oh wow. I remember once my dad was interviewing for a job in a far-away state and the company flew BOTH him and my mom out there to talk to them. But that was 1973!

    Reply ↓
    1. pally*

      Me too! Mom checked out the school system and housing situation while Dad was interviewed. Not sure if she was actually interviewed. But I know my parents would not have paid for a plane ticket for her to go with.

      Reply ↓
    2. Liz the Snackbrarian*

      Once when my dad inteviewed for a job the whole family came along–it was an admin position in higher education, and my brother and I came as well as my mom. They didn’t want to interview us kids, I think it was just so we could get the lay of the land. I needed zero persuading–I was being bullied at school, and was happy to move several states away and get a fresh start.

      Reply ↓
    3. HonorBox*

      My wife and I traveled once when I interviewed for a position. That was at my request, however, because I wanted to be sure it was a community in which we felt comfortable.

      Reply ↓
  29. Tweepark*

    When my husband (a pastor) interviewed for his current job, the church’s hiring committee flew both of us out for the interview weekend. The previous pastor had been let go because of an inappropriate office relationship (having an affair with the associate pastor, who had voluntarily quit once it was discovered), and the previous top candidate had turned down the offer because his wife didn’t want to move.

    They were definitely trying to woo me and make sure I was on board, but I think they also wanted to make sure I was a real person and didn’t have any immediate red flags.

    Reply ↓
    1. TK*

      Clergy hiring pretty much follows its own set of rules entirely and little other job-search advice can be applied to it! And what that set of rules is varies massively by the type of church or other religious institution.

      Reply ↓
      1. Tweepark*

        Oh yes. That was not the first time I was invited alongside my husband to interview… and we definitely nixed a couple of churches that wanted to use me as unpaid labor. I have my own life and career, thank you very much.

        Reply ↓
    2. iglwif*

      I don’t know much about churches, but I have served on a synagogue board, and clergy hiring is … its own entire thing. Aside from serious shenanigans such as you describe, clergy work long and weird hours — for a start, you can’t schedule when people get sick or die or have emergencies! — and are expected to welcome congregants into their homes, at least sometimes. Clergy spouses know all of this going in, but there’s more, too, and it’s going to be terrible for everyone if you hire a pastor or a rabbi or whatever whose spouse has some serious objection to the gig.

      Reply ↓
      1. TK*

        Yeah absolutely. I think anyone who marries a member of the clergy (at least one who is serving or going to serve in a congregational setting) has to know going in that there are going to be expectations for them as a spouse that go far beyond a normal job. And honestly, this largely makes sense for a religious institution.

        Reply ↓
        1. Rocket Raccoon*

          Yes, my parents divorced largely because my mom didn’t want to be a pastor’s wife and there’s no getting around that when, well, you’re married to a pastor. I think she grossly underestimated the amount of involvement she would be expected to have with his job.

          Reply ↓
        2. iglwif*

          For sure. You have to know what you are getting yourself into generally, but you also have to know what you are getting yourself into specifically, because different congregations can have very different vibes and very different expectations!

          Reply ↓
  30. learnedthehardway*

    I have done recruitment projects where the company DID speak with spouses – but it was more on an informal basis. This is usually for one or more of the following reasons:

    – the role entails relocating the family, and the hiring company wants to be VERY sure that the spouse is genuinely on board and supportive of the move (it’s expensive to relocate someone, then find out that their spouse and kids won’t come, and then have to replace the person because they decide to go back home to be with family).

    – the role entails an international move – not only relocation but also the potential for the spouse and family to adapt to the new culture.

    – the role is very senior and/or very prominent in the company/community and the company wants to be sure that the candidate’s spouse will not embarrass the company. We’ve all heard stories of a spouse attempting to throw their weight around because their partner is important, or behaving badly at industry, political or business events – companies don’t like that and will try to vet spouses to make sure that won’t happen.

    Reply ↓
  31. WorkingClassLady*

    I’m shocked this is legal to ask in 2025. How? I thought marital and childbearing status was off-limits.

    Why not simply be up-front with the candidate about what the job demands in terms of extended time away from home, travel, relocation to a new city, etc and give them a few days to decide?
    if a job candidate can’t be trusted to figure that out on their own, they probably can’t be trusted with the job.
    My husband is supportive of my career but no WAY would I be okay with an employer asking his “permission” and I’d be equally weirded out if the tables were turned.

    Reply ↓
    1. TK*

      Marriage and family status aren’t protected classes federally in the US, though they are in some states and municipalities. And it’s never illegal to ask about protected class characteristics, just to make decisions based on them. (Which means asking is quite… unwise.)

      That being said, there are settings where this isn’t as weird as it sounds, though not like in OP’s story. In academia, where relocation is the norm for many jobs, some interaction with a candidate’s spouse or partner in a job search can happen. But it’s not required and it’s gender-neutral.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer Strange*

        I would also hope in situations where this is more typical, it’s framed less as “We want to talk to your spouse and children” and more as “If there is anyone who would need to move with you to accept this position we’d love the opportunity to meet with them and talk through any questions about this area they may have”. That way you’re acknowledging that family doesn’t just mean spouse and children, and it seems less like an interview for your family.

        Reply ↓
        1. Kevin Sours*

          They way I heard it framed was “Is there anybody who might affect your decision to accept this position that we should talk to?” (not academia but an industry where relocation is common and positions can be sometimes hard to fill). And by talk to we mean give them a sales pitch.

          Reply ↓
    2. Kevin Sours*

      It is illegal to use marital status as a basis to hire or not hire. There is a strong presumption that anything you ask is used as basis for hiring but it’s only a presumption. It is not strictly speaking illegal to ask. You’d have to inquire of a employment lawyer if asking if your spouse in on board with the hire crosses the line.

      On the one hand getting into family dynamics is intrusive and really not appropriate for an employer. On the other hand figuring out if a job candidate can be trusted with a job is the entire purpose of the interview process, so I can understand why they’d want to ask. But sometimes we have to accept that some things that impact us are none the less none of our damn business and get on with things.

      Reply ↓
      1. TK*

        Marital status is not a protected class federally in the US, though it is in some states or municipalities.

        As I (and others) note elsewhere in the thread, involvement of spouses/partners in the interview process can often be a thing in industries (academia chief among them) where relocation is the norm.

        Reply ↓
        1. Kevin Sours*

          That it is a thing doesn’t mean it’s not intrusive or inappropriate. My wife is in a industry where relocation is exceedingly common. I would not want to be in a position where me performatively showing enthusiasm would be a determining factor in whether or not she gets a job.

          Reply ↓
  32. Zona the Great*

    A couple of years ago, a female boss told me, a non-drinker, that I had better learn to fake it for when my (non-existent yet presumably in some Mad Men era business) husband needs me to impress at company cocktail parties. Perhaps she and your FIL or the hiring manager were once married.

    Reply ↓
  33. Ana Gram*

    I spent about 10 years hiring cops (and other public safety roles) and we also talked to the spouse/partner for officer hires. We wanted to make sure they understood the shifts, the mental health toll, etc. and we also asked them about the candidate’s alcohol use*, drug use, domestic violence, concerns about having guns in the home, etc. But that’s a pretty extreme outlier. Even I think what the OP is describing is outdated and weird.

    *We were asking about negative behaviors associated with alcohol use, not addiction issues, fwiw.

    Reply ↓
  34. used to be a tester*

    The most charitable explanation possible (and I’m reaching like a yoga instructor here) is that it’s a position with long hours/lots of travel/an expectation that clients are entertained by the employee and their spouse, and they’ve had people quit shortly after getting hired because ‘the family’ had not understood the level of commitment required?

    But I’d have that conversation with just the person I’m hiring – something like “In the past some spouses have been surprised by how often you’ll be away from home/how involved we expect them to be in your work life. Would you like me to chat with your partner about that, or do you feel both you and they have a good handle on what the role requires?”

    Reply ↓
  35. James*

    My brain made “your father-in-law sounds like a difficult in-law” into “difficult-in-law” and I got a flashback to my late-boyfriend’s mother.

    I reserve the right to use “difficult-in-law” in future conversations.

    Reply ↓
  36. CrashTestHuman*

    I am a clergy spouse and this is a very common practice in that world. The spouse (for better or worse) is assumed to be part of the package and an asset to the community. (I’ve also been asked to serve on the board on multiple occasions, which to me crosses a line to where I become my spouse’s boss).

    In my field, however (private sector R&D) this would be extremely outside the norm. I would be very suspicious of an employer asking about my family before being hired.

    Reply ↓
  37. HonorBox*

    If I take my glasses off and look at this with some obscured vision, I could see a couple situations in which this works. Best case, the employer wants to ensure that the investment they’re making in bringing someone onto their team has the best opportunity to pay dividends. For instance, if the applicant will be working longer hours, traveling more, etc. than they’re used to, you probably want to ensure that expectation is fully understood all the way around. Because if not, your new employee may pull the rip cord sooner. Or if someone is moving a distance and the conversation with the spouse includes offers of resources and support for them to get connected in the new community, great.

    But when I put my glasses back on, I see that there are far better ways to gather this kind of information and provide this kind of support because there are far too many ways to look at this and get the icks. I think a lot of it is how the request is phrased, whether it is a request or demand, and what you know about the company already.

    Reply ↓
  38. CzechMate*

    The only other reason I could see this being maybe okay (aside from those Alison mentioned) is if a) the candidate is a professor b) who is interested in relocating, c) the candidate’s spouse is also a professor, and d) the hiring manager wants to see if they have a job for the spouse at the institution.

    Reply ↓
  39. Strive to Excel*

    I know that there’s a number of high-security or other clearance-related roles where they want to know about your family as well as you. But that doesn’t apply here, because at least in the US, that process is waaaay more formal and takes months.

    Reply ↓
  40. Not all that long ago*

    In the early 2000s my husband was told he should “Get his wife under control” when I was very vocal about a local issue in our community. The issue had nothing to do with his job but was concerning a non-profit his company helped support. It was made clear his career path could be in jeopardy if I continued to speak out. He loved his job and we needed the income. I kept my opinion to myself after that. He was thankful.

    Reply ↓
  41. Lisa*

    I interviewed for a company in Denmark once and they were concerned about my BF. They were willing to give him a job too! They didn’t want us to move to isolated part of the country without knowing the drawbacks. Danish are known to ignore coworkers and exclude new hires and I knew that ahead of time. Since there were plenty of non Danish in that area to work there, I said I was confident we would be fine waiting the 5 years before being accepted by locals if I had expats around. Plus no kids then and that my bf planned to not work for 6 months to travel around. But that is the exception because so many spouses such as stay at home moms are isolated there and 65% either divorced or moved back after a year. Didn’t get it but then that division moved to my hometown in the US which is hysterical to me that I could have gone home if I wanted to on company dime.

    Reply ↓
  42. GirlieePop*

    If an employer my husband was interviewing with asked to talk to me about it I would tell him not to take a job with that company lmao

    Reply ↓
  43. Crencestre*

    In John Molloy’s “Live for Success” (1981), he described this exact scenario – companies looking for high-level executives also interviewing their spouses (and yes, he did include their wanting to interview female candidates’ husbands as well.) This was to determine their social class as well as their willingness to be supportive of their spouses’ careers; an executive who was expected to entertain business guests could not have a spouse whose lower class behavior, speech, dress or mannerisms would reflect badly on the executive to whom they were married.

    He described one subterfuge to determine this – the candidate was asked to invite some of their friends for a small gathering to entertain a company executive supposedly visiting from out of town (but who was actually there to evaluate the class level of the candidate and their spouse.) If the spouse and the couple’s friends were solidly upper-middle class or above, then the candidate passed with flying colors. If they were determined to be lower middle class or below, that candidate could kiss their chances goodbye at THAT company!

    This book was written in 1981, and doubtless reflected normal business thinking among many upper management executives at that time. It’s 44 years later – what’s the excuse for pulling this kind of stunt NOW?!

    Reply ↓
  44. Not your typical admin*

    I mentioned this in the thread the other day about the church hiring the pastor’s wife to lead music. I’ve been the wife in this situation several times. Little bit different situation, since many times a clergy spouse has an unofficial role to play.

    In every case, the majority of the interview was about making sure I would be happy and that I meshed with the congregation. It was always more of them selling me on my husband taking the position than anything else. I could possibly see this being good in a position that was going to involve a big move, or something about the position would require a large adjustment from the spouse – regardless of the gender of those involved.

    Reply ↓
  45. allhailtheboi*

    All this talk in the comments about ‘wooing’ spouses and families reminded me of when my mum worked in schools. She interviewed somewhere where they kept stressing to her how good their in-house creche was for preschool children and how they’d be guaranteed spaces at the school (primary) once they were old enough. My brother and I were in our teens! Unfortunately I can’t remember if Mum told them that while the offer was great, it was a little irrelevant for her.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS