I am seeking your guidance and expertise in understanding the intricacies of Title VII laws and violations. Your insights would be invaluable in helping me navigate the complexities of this subject matter. Thank you for your support and knowledge, as I am eager to learn and become more informed.

From an "In Flair" hiring software program, a female applicant applied for a job. The website has the ability to send a resume to In Flair or to apply directly to the company. The female applicant chose to apply directly to the company, completed the application process and submitted the application electronically. Very quickly the company contacted the female applicant and set up a virtual interview. At the virtual interview, standard interview questions were asked by the company HR rep and answered by the female applicant.

After the virtual interview was over, the HR Rep talked with the female applicant and asked, "tell me about yourself." The female applicant did so and during this brief period, she mentioned that she was married and had two children and lived in Virginia and was looking forward to working for the company.

The female applicant was later contacted by the company, for a second interview, at the company's New York Headquarters. She was flown up to New York City and was brought into the interview room, where she met the male HR VP, the male Division Director, and the male Operations manager, whom she would work directly under. The three interviewers were at least 20 to 30 years older than the female applicant; they could be considered "young baby boomers" born between 1946 and 1964, but closer to the early 1960s.

The interview began with standard interview questions, and all seemed well until one of the interviewers asked the applicant whether she was married, had children, if so, how many and their ages. After answering these questions, the second interviewer then asked what her childcare responsibilities were, and how her family felt about her weekly commute between the business's headquarters in New York and the family home in Virginia, which she returned to on the weekends.

The third interviewer then asked the applicant "how her husband handled the fact that [she] was away from home so much, not caring for the family" and said he had "a very difficult time" understanding why any man would allow his wife to live away from home during the workweek, only to be home for just the weekends.

The female applicant was visibly shaken but attempted to answer these questions as professionally as she could. When the interview was over, the three male interviewers got up and left without even thanking the female applicant for her time. The applicant slowly gathered her things and departed the interview room, nobody escorted her out of the building, and she left the building, truly believing it was the worst interview of her professional career. She flew to her home and later told her husband about the interview and the questions the three male interviewers asked her.

Her husband was so mad, for what he perceived to be improper, even illegal questions, that he suggested his wife contact an attorney, be ready to present a written recollection of the interview and see if she had a potential claim against the interviewers and the company. The applicant did so, wrote out her statement, made a legal appointment and soon met an attorney, regarding her recent interview and if she had a potential claim for wrongful mistreatment during an employment hiring interview.

You are the attorney; you read the written statement and talk with the female applicant. The attorney must consider the following:

1. Was the company interviewer's line of questioning a violation of Title VII? If so, what violation(s)? Why or why not?

2. Was the interview "tainted" to begin with, as the interviewers were all male and the applicant was female? Why or why not?

3. What else would the attorney need for facts or other written evidence before the attorney decides there is sufficient grounds to file a grievance or complaint against company?

4. Would it matter that the applicant has yet to hear from the company, regarding their hiring decision, and it is now going on three weeks?