I do actually sympathise with Microsoft here, and they don't have a lot of good options, but I still don't think they picked an acceptable option.
> Couldn't Microsoft also get into trouble by hiring just one of them (the other one could have a good case for being treated unfairly)?
MS has no obligation to hire any interns, and ultimately they have to make a judgement call about the interns honesty, integrity, and suitability. If you think one of your interns is a liar or a rapist (or even just lazy or incompetent!), then you have an obligation not to hire them (and no, that doesn't open you up to legal risk). If you have two interns, and you can't figure out which one is the liar (or rapist), the obvious choice would be to hire neither.
The situation is unfair to MS, and to at least one (and maybe both) of the interns, but even so, hiring them both and then putting them on the same team seems like the worst possible way to handle it. How could the team possibly function given that history, regardless of who's telling the truth?
> Couldn't Microsoft also get into trouble by hiring just one of them (the other one could have a good case for being treated unfairly)?
MS has no obligation to hire any interns, and ultimately they have to make a judgement call about the interns honesty, integrity, and suitability. If you think one of your interns is a liar or a rapist (or even just lazy or incompetent!), then you have an obligation not to hire them (and no, that doesn't open you up to legal risk). If you have two interns, and you can't figure out which one is the liar (or rapist), the obvious choice would be to hire neither.
The situation is unfair to MS, and to at least one (and maybe both) of the interns, but even so, hiring them both and then putting them on the same team seems like the worst possible way to handle it. How could the team possibly function given that history, regardless of who's telling the truth?