[T-hawk]

> It's illegal to discriminate candidates based on non-work aspects (e.g. candidate has kids).

This is true only when a specific law creates a specific protected class. Discrimination is legal by default. An employer can freely choose who it associates with. It only becomes illegal when a specific law makes it so.

Protected classes in most US jurisdictions include characteristics like gender, race, religion, some medical conditions. Age is a protected class only over age 40; discriminating against a worker of age 39 for being too old, or favoring workers over 40, is entirely legal. I don't know offhand if family status of kids is a protected class.

But protected classes don't include a lot of things that people commonly think they do. Some example non-work factors that are perfectly legal to discriminate on because there is no US law protecting the class: smoking, obesity, height, car you drive, method of commuting, sports team favoritism.

[astura]

If you're asking invasive personal questions like "what are your life plans?" during a job interview it can look like you're trying to discriminate against a protected class.

I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing.

It's risky and there's just no good reason to do it.

[jxfreeman]

Familial status is off limits in the US. So is marital status, health questions and questions about transportation to and from work. Basically, if it isn’t related to the job you could find yourself embroiled in a nasty lawsuit with the Labor Dept. not on your side.