Interview Questions That Could Cost You: A Guide for Employers

Hiring in the fashion industry is personal. Brand fit matters, and managers naturally want a team that reflects the store or the label. But there is a line between assessing genuine job fit and asking questions that stray into discrimination, and it is one fashion retailers cross more often than most, usually without realising it.

The Human Rights Act 1993 applies from the first line of a job ad through to the final interview question. For brand owners and store managers overseeing their own recruitment, knowing where that line sits is part of running a robust hiring process.

What the Act covers

The Act sets out thirteen protected grounds, including sex (which covers pregnancy and childbirth), age, marital and family status, religious and ethical belief, race, ethnicity, disability, employment status, political opinion, and sexual orientation. These protections apply to job ads, application forms, interviews, and offers, not just to people already employed. Asking a question that indicates an intention to discriminate on any of these grounds is unlawful, even unintentionally.

Where we see the risk shows up:

Age. Wanting someone "young and energetic," or conversely "mature," signals age as a factor. Questions framed around energy or "culture fit" often carry the same risk as asking a candidate's age outright.

Family and marital status. Questions about children or relationships usually come from a genuine scheduling concern, but they are the fastest route to a complaint. Ask directly instead: "Are there any commitments that would prevent you from meeting the rostered hours?" Put to every candidate the same way, it gets the same answer without the risk.

Appearance and presentation. Dress and grooming standards can be lawful where genuinely tied to the role. The risk is inconsistency, or a standard that indirectly disadvantages a protected ground, such as a no-visible-tattoo policy affecting religious expression, or a grooming rule that doesn't account for disability. The test: is it genuinely necessary for the role, and applied evenly to everyone?

Health and disability. Avoid questions about medical history. Where a role has a genuine physical requirement, describe it plainly and ask if the candidate can meet it, rather than asking about health directly.

A simple standard:

Set out the inherent requirements of the role before you write the ad or sit down to interview. Then test every question against one standard: is this genuinely relevant, and would I ask it of every candidate the same way? Consistency does most of the protective work — a question that's job-focused and asked identically to all candidates is far easier to defend than one that changes with who's in the room.

Beyond compliance:

Candidates notice a fair, considered process. In an industry where the best talent has options, a genuine hiring experience is part of what makes a brand desired as an employer.

This is the kind of detail we work through with every Frame client, from job ad wording to interview structure. If you'd like a second set of eyes on your process, we're always happy to help. Please get in touch with us today.

*****This article reflects our understanding of the Human Rights Act 1993 and current Employment New Zealand guidance at the time of writing. It is not a substitute for legal advice — given how often guidance in this area shifts, confirm any specific decision against current Employment New Zealand resources or a qualified employment lawyer.

Image: Pinterest