Liberty Counsel filed a reply brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Zinski v. Liberty University arguing that Liberty University, as a Christian employer, has an absolute right to employ people who abide by its doctrinal statement.

This case has attracted national attention judged by the amicus briefs submitted to the court. Multiple colleges, universities, and faith-based institutions, including legal scholars, have filed briefs in support of Liberty University. On the other hand, 19 Democrat-controlled states and the District of Columbia have filed in opposition.

Jonathan Zinski, a biological male, informed the university 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, but Zinski alleges his firing amounts to “sex discrimination.”

Liberty Counsel argues that Sections 702 and 703 of Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious institutions like Liberty to make employment decisions when those decisions are based on religion and the employee’s conduct.

In July 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 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.

According to the brief, Liberty University’s decision to terminate Zinski’s employment was based on Zinski’s “defiant conduct in open violation of the university’s Doctrinal Statement.” Liberty made clear that its decision was “wholly religious” because Zinski failed to abide by its religious beliefs, wrote Liberty Counsel.

Zinski argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision, which interpreted sex discrimination to include gender identity, should remove Liberty’s religious autonomy and constitutional protections in this case because the question of his “sex” is involved. However, Bostock specifically left questions regarding Title VII religious liberty protections for “future cases.”

Yet, Zinski contends that Liberty University must be compelled to employ him despite his beliefs and actions being in direct opposition to the university’s religious mission, which is to infuse the campus community with the Christian faith.  

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Jonathan Zinski violated Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and his termination was solely based on the Zinski’s conduct-based open defiance of the university’s doctrine and religious beliefs. The law allows Liberty University to determine its religious beliefs and to require employees to act consistent with those beliefs free from government interference. 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. That means, no faith-based employer will survive. But this is precisely the reason we have exemptions for religious employers and educational institutions in federal law which are inspired by the First Amendment.”