In 2024, we covered the lawsuit against Liberty University, in which “Ellenor” Zinski, a biological male, accused Liberty, an openly Christian and conservative institution, of discrimination after it fired him. The following update comes from Liberty Counsel, the legal organization seeking to protect Liberty University’s religious freedom.

[On Tuesday], Liberty Counsel presented oral argument at the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Zinski v. Liberty University, a case that could determine the scope of religious liberty protections for faith-based institutions. The central issue in the case is whether a religious organization can abide by its doctrinal statement in its employment decisions, or whether federal employment law requires religious institutions to hire—and retain—employees whose personal conduct directly contradicts the institution’s religious doctrine.

View Comments (7)

Join others crying out to the Lord day and night.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver argued on behalf of Liberty University that as a Christian employer, the university has an absolute right to employ people who abide by its doctrinal statement.

Jonathan Zinski, a biological male, informed the university in July 2023 after his 90-day probationary employment period expired that he wanted to “transition” to “identify as female” and change his name to “Ellenor.” He was terminated for open violation of Liberty University’s doctrinal statement that declares human beings are created “as either biologically male or female from the womb.”

While Zinski alleges his firing amounts to “sex discrimination,” Liberty University contends that it acted consistently with the constitutional protections under the First Amendment’s Church Autonomy Doctrine and that the broad exemptions under federal Title VII employment law protect religious organizations from certain federal discrimination regulations.

Staver emphasized that Zinski’s firing was not about sex discrimination, nor about any animus or personal hostility, but about institutional integrity.

“If Liberty can’t actually hire employees that are consistent with its faith, then Liberty has no faith,” Staver told the three-judge panel. Staver further noted that Zinski has a “different faith” from the university and wants to “supplant” Liberty’s doctrine for that of Zinski’s LGBTQ affirming church, which would turn the university into a “hypocrite for having a doctrinal statement that means nothing.”

The panel expressed concern about the possibility that religious organizations might be forced to hire employees whose fundamental beliefs contradict the institution’s religious doctrine.

Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. posed a fundamental hypothetical question of whether a “Christian church of 16 employees, one of which is a janitor, must hire a transgender employee even though their beliefs…would be contrary to their doctrine?”

Representing Zinski, ACLU attorney Matthew Callahan said “yes” they must hire because applicable employment laws are “neutral” and “must be obeyed.”

However, Judge James Wynn pushed back on the “must-hire” notion. He stated that forcing a church to hire someone whose beliefs contradict its doctrine would effectively “force a church to do something.” Judge Wynn questioned whether the court would be “making decisions for the church” in these matters.

Judge Henry Floyd questioned whether rushing to judgment at the motion-to-dismiss stage is appropriate, given that the legal principles at stake could affect hundreds of thousands of employees at religious hospitals, universities, and social organizations nationwide.

The outcome of this case has the potential to establish whether:

• Religious institutions retain autonomy over their missions through employment decisions based on doctrinal standards, or
• Federal employment law operates universally across all non-ministerial positions, regardless of an institution’s religious beliefs.

In 2023, Liberty University terminated 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. 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.

Staver said, “Zinski v. Liberty University is fundamentally about whether religious institutions can maintain their identity and mission in their employment decisions. Liberty University has the right to employ individuals whose beliefs and conduct align with its doctrinal teachings. If Liberty University cannot enforce its doctrinal statement in its employment decisions, it becomes a hypocrite teaching one thing to its students while employing people actively living contrary to those teachings. If a single employee can supplant an employer’s religious beliefs by forcing it to conform to the employee’s worldview, then no faith-based employer will survive. Religious institutions must have the freedom to live out their faith authentically lest they become indistinguishable from secular institutions.”

How are you praying into this case? Share your prayers and scriptures below.

This article was originally published at Liberty Counsel. Photo Credit: iStock.