Liberty Counsel filed the opening brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Zinski v. Liberty University seeking dismissal of a meritless Title VII lawsuit. Jonathan Zinski, a biological male, informed the university after his 90-day probation expired that he wanted to “transition” to “identify as female” and change his name to “Ellenor.” He was terminated for open violation of Liberty’s doctrinal statement and now alleges “sex discrimination.”
Liberty Counsel argues Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious institutions like Liberty University to make employment decisions when those decisions are based on religion.
In July 2023, Liberty University terminated Jonathan Zinski after he flagrantly and intentionally violated Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and policies regarding the biblical understanding of gender. When Zinski was hired, he acknowledged and affirmed the university’s doctrinal statement that declares human beings are created “as either biologically male or female from the womb.” But then as soon as his 90-day probation period expired, he revealed he had begun taking female hormones four months before he was hired, and that he planned to “identify” as female. Zinski set up this case when he applied to be hired.
The brief argues the following:
- Sections 702 and 703 of Title VII and its statutory exemptions for religious institutions exempt Liberty University when it terminates an individual for violating its sincerely held religious beliefs and doctrinal requirements.
- The First Amendment’s ecclesiastical exception doctrine, the ministerial exception, and freedom of association all exempt Liberty University from this lawsuit and allow it to terminate a person who espouses an identity and beliefs directly contrary to its core Christian mission.
- The federal RFRA shields Liberty University from liability under Title VII and protects it from federal employment laws that substantially burden its religious beliefs and employment requirements.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The law allows Liberty University to determine its religious beliefs and to require employees to act consistent with those beliefs. Zinski intentionally and deceptively set up Liberty University to undermine its religious beliefs and mission. The implications of this case extend far beyond Liberty University. If a single employee can demand that its faith-based employer abandon its religious beliefs to conform to the employee’s worldview, then religious freedom has no meaning. No faith-based employer will survive. But this is precisely the reason we have exemptions for religious employers and educational institutions in federal law and as protected under the First Amendment.”
