Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Liberty Counsel’s petition to appeal the lawsuit, Zinski v. Liberty University, which consolidates the Title VII lawsuit with Liberty Counsel’s motion to dismiss the case under the First Amendment, the ministerial exception, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The case deals with new and complex questions of law regarding sex discrimination and religious doctrines, such as whether Sections 702 and 703 of Title VII permit Liberty University to require its employees to maintain the same religious beliefs and practices in agreement with Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and Christian mission. Also, whether Liberty University is exempt from sex discrimination claims for terminating a gender-confused employee who refused to do so.   

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 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.

In U.S. district court, Senior Judge Norman K. Moon ordered Zinski’s claims could move forward to the pre-trial phase of discovery and certified the case for an expedited appeal noting the case presented “no ordinary question” which could lead to different answers and outcomes.

Judge Moon wrote that Zinski’s “sole claim” invokes Title VII sex discrimination raising the question of whether Liberty University is exempt from sex discrimination in order to uphold its religious doctrines. He stated if the higher court finds that Title VII exempts Liberty University from sex discrimination, then it would be “wholly immune” from this lawsuit. He stated such a ruling could lead to the possible ending of the case saving Liberty University significant pre-trial effort and expense.

In the brief, Liberty Counsel argues that federal law protects religious institutions to uphold their sincere Christian beliefs and to employ those who are aligned with its mission and beliefs. The brief noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton, which concluded federal anti-discrimination law includes gender identity despite no textual reference to it, left undecided the interplay between Title VII’s statutory exemptions for religious institutions and claims brought by individuals claiming to be “transgender.” Bostock specifically left that decision for “future cases.”

Here, that “future” Title VII defense Bostock referred to is now before the court, wrote Liberty Counsel. 

Liberty Counsel also argues the case must be dismissed because the First Amendment, the ministerial exception, and RFRA guarantee Liberty University the right to make its own decisions on doctrinal beliefs and the conformity of its employees to those beliefs.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty University is now able to appeal this critically important question of religious freedom which can result in controlling the outcome of the case. Zinski intentionally and deceptively set up Liberty University in an attempt to undermine its religious beliefs and mission. Title VII exempts Liberty University from having to employ individuals who violate its religious beliefs and doctrinal positions.”