Liberty University will appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals a federal judge’s refusal to dismiss the meritless Title VII lawsuit, Zinski v. Liberty University. In July 2023, Liberty University terminated Jonathan Zinski after he flagrantly and intentionally violated Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and policies. When Zinski was hired, he acknowledged and affirmed the doctrinal statement, 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.
U.S. District Judge Norman Moon ordered that the case could move forward to the discovery phase, which precedes a trial. In his decision, Judge Moon said that while it was unclear under current law whether a religious institution who terminates a gender-confused employee for violating its religious doctrines is discriminating on the basis of religion, he held that Liberty cannot “erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its message.” Judge Moon concluded that Liberty University’s employment of Zinski does not significantly burden its ability to maintain its views and nor does it offend its freedom of expressive association. Judge Moon also recognized that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, neither the Fourth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have clarified the interplay between Title VII’s statutory exemptions for religious institutions and individuals claiming to be “transgender.” The Supreme Court’s decision explicitly stated that the protection afforded to religious institutions in such scenarios were for future cases, and Liberty Counsel will press both the Fourth Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court to recognize what the First Amendment and Title VII both require—that Liberty University is permitted to maintain its religious beliefs and practices and to require its employees to comport their lives with Liberty University’s Doctrinal Statement and religious beliefs.
Liberty Counsel will argue on appeal that federal law protects religious institutions to uphold their sincere Christian beliefs and to employ those who are aligned with its religious mission and beliefs. In whatever way the Court of Appeals rules, this case has the potential for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The history of this case shows that Jonathan Zinski attempted to set up Liberty University for this lawsuit, in which Zinski was represented by the ACLU. Four months before applying to Liberty University, he began taking female hormones. Yet, when hired in February 2023, Zinski agreed to adhere to the university’s doctrinal position regarding the biblical understanding of gender. Liberty University’s doctrinal statement clearly states that human beings were directly created in the very image of God as either biologically male or female from the womb, and it is a sinful act prohibited by God to deny one’s birth sex by self-identification with a different gender. Zinski acknowledged all of this despite knowing that he was four months into executing his plan to act in opposition to Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and employment requirements by denying his biological sex. As his 90-day probation ended, Zinski revealed his effort to identify as a different gender and then demanded Liberty University depart from its doctrine, sincerely held religious beliefs, and Christian mission.
However, as Liberty Counsel argued, federal law entitles Liberty University to decide which employees align with its religious mission and beliefs, as well as to refrain from associating with and employing individuals who are not aligned with its distinctive Christian workplace.
“Liberty University’s decision to terminate Zinski was based on its religious values, and Title VII’s text exempts that religious decision from employment discrimination suits,” wrote Liberty Counsel. “Liberty University has the freedom not to associate with individuals, such as Zinski, whose religious beliefs and conduct are directly contrary to the vital religious mission in which Liberty University is engaged.” Liberty Counsel concluded that Zinski’s discrimination claim “must be dismissed with prejudice” because the university’s decision was “religious, plain and simple.”
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty University has the right under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to uphold its sincere Christian religious beliefs and require its employees to do the same. Jonathan Zinski intentionally and deceptively set up Liberty University in an attempt to undermine its religious beliefs and mission. Title VII makes it abundantly clear that Liberty University does not violate the law when it discharges an employee who has publicly engaged in conduct inconsistent with its religious principles. Title VII exempts Liberty University from having to employ individuals who violate its religious beliefs and doctrinal positions.”
