This was a job doing data analyst work. I would not take the job even if they come back with an offer just because it was such a weird interview process.
As a manager, motivation is one of the primary things I focus on. Every employee is different ... some people want money, some people want autonomy, some people want to be mentored, some people want to work on massive systems. I try not to get philosophical (or personal) but I at least try to get a flavor from a candidate as to what their motivation would be and how that might fit into the team.
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.
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.
Careful with that, it implies you have an issue with trust or micromanagement. As a candidate, I'd roll my eyes and move on.
> Talk about life with your candidates
Careful with this one too. It's illegal to discriminate candidates based on non-work aspects (e.g. candidate has kids). If you're a small company C-suit doing the hiring, this is especially problematic as it can come across to a candidate as being overly nosy and raise flags.