Final answer:
True statements about the state law interface in Title VII claims include the prohibition of employment discrimination under Title VII, the necessity for employment requirements to be job-related, and the likelihood of federal courts hearing cases involving federal questions such as those under Title VII. The complexity of Title VII's application with regard to gender identity is also notable.
Step-by-step explanation:
The interface between state law and the filing process of Title VII claims involves several considerations. One true statement is that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Additionally, Supreme Court rulings such as Griggs v. Duke Power Co. assert that employment practices must not be discriminatory, even indirectly, unless they are directly related to job performance. Lastly, federal courts are more likely to hear a state case when it involves a federal question, which may include issues covered by Title VII.
However, interpretations and applications vary; for example, in Macy v. Holder, the EEOC ruled that Title VII protections extended to transgender employees, but subsequent actions by the Department of Justice have contested this extension, removing certain protections for transgender individuals. This conflict demonstrates the ongoing evolution and complexity of Title VII's application via both federal and state laws.