My understanding is that they were Internet Applicants . The wording the DOL used makes it appear that someone just needs to say they meet the basic qualifications (defined in another section on the same page).
What should be concerning is it applies to these 3 jobs specifically. Palantir is offering a lot more jobs than what is indicated in the lawsuit  . As another poster has said, could it be a poisoned recruiter? I wonder if that will be considered and if it will affect the AI (adversity impact).
>the individual's expression of interest indicated that the individual possesses the basic qualification for the position 
The issue for this case will be proving whether or not the applicants actually met the basic qualifications. Interestingly, the language implies that someone must simply indicate that they possess the basic qualifications. It doesn't go into detail on verifying the actual possession of those qualifications.
I'd like to see what exactly is done to verify the applicants actually met the basic qualifications.
The article implies they preferred white candidates, but the preferred races are not mentioned in the government's press release, simply "non-Asian." I would not jump to conclusions about the non-Asian candidates as there are other possible scenarios.
Here's the actual government complaint, the allegations are listed in sections 10 and 11, https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
1) why is the qualified candidate pool, whatever that is, so overwhelmingly Asian, 73-85%? Isn't the candidate selection process biased towards Asians?
2) The complaint is concerned about the use of employee referrals. Studies have shown that building teams from referrals can be a big productivity boost because it enhances team cohesion. While employee referrals can lead to a monoculture it doesn't seem that the federal government should prohibit it.