> The judge limited the class to people who had an in-person interview, which means that job applicants who only had phone interviews can't join the class.

I feel (anecdotal only) that it's pretty easy to approximate age due e.g. to lexicon and potentially dialect, and that it's even easier to pick up on certain vocal changes in older candidates, so I can see the argument in favor of including phone interviews in the class.

That said, the argument for restricting it to only people who passed the phone screens appears to be that the phone screen establishes an initial impression of qualification (skimmed from page 13 of the ruling; I could be entirely wrong and could've quoted an irrelevant passage, but I'd like to think this is accurate):

> The proposed class would include an unknown number of “applicants” who demonstrate no plausible qualifications for the job. To establish a prima facie case of an ADEA violation, the plaintiff must show, among other things, that he was qualified for the position.

https://www.scribd.com/document/326637833/Google-Age-Discrim...