For anyone subject to United States employment law: you can generally ask questions about where a person lives if they're carefully constricted to determining whether they can reasonable get to the worksite. Otherwise, questions like these risk being interpreted as a proxy for racial discrimination, in large part because they historically have been one of the primary proxies for overt racial discrimination.
I think the interviewers were asking about the metro stop where the candidate worked as a method to assess the veracity of the resume item. Same thing for the question about what division the candidate worked in at Uber.
Yes, and everybody who has been forced to settle out a discrimination case where the alleged facts included questions about the candidate's zip code had a reason other than "we don't want Black folks working here" answer, and if they were dumb enough to take that case all the way to court, they might even have prevailed with it, but in employment law it's the ride not the rap.
I'm assuming everybody who's been a witness (or god forbid a party) to a protected-class employment lawsuit had their eyebrows shoot up all the way off their head at the premise of this article, which is "rooting out secret North Koreans from an incoming flow of candidates, in part using forensic interview questions".
I'm not interested in the axiomatic derivation. Just search for "illegal interview questions" and things like "residency" or "where candidate lives". I'm confident there's a way to handle this, but just Leeroy Jenkins-ing it with "what's your nearest Metro stop" probably isn't it.
