Christian school urges appeals court to uphold its right to hire only individuals who agree with its doctrine
—
Loading the Audio Player…
Liberty University argued before a federal appeals court Tuesday in a religious liberty case involving its right to fire employees. It’s a case that even the judges hearing it admitted is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.
The Christian school based in Lynchburg, Va., is defending its decision to fire an employee who was attempting to alter his sex characteristics. The school contends it has the right to employ only people who abide by its doctrinal statement, but the employee argues Liberty’s termination discriminated against him on the basis of gender. Judges for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week gave little indication of how they will rule but said their decision likely won’t settle the issue.
“There are issues before us today that the Supreme Court has not addressed,” Circuit Judge James Wynn said.
Liberty first hired the individual, then known as Jonathan Zinski, in 2023 to work at its IT help desk. The school, founded in 1971 by Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell Sr., required Zinski to sign a copy of its doctrinal statement as part of the hiring process.
Several months later, Zinski informed the school that he identified as a woman, had been undergoing hormonal treatment, and intended soon to change his name legally to Ellenor.
In August 2023, Liberty officials terminated Zinski because his actions directly contradicted the doctrinal statement he agreed to at the start of his job. The statement explains that, among other unacceptable behavior, the “denial of birth sex by self-identification with a different gender” is a sin.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed a lawsuit against Liberty on Zinski’s behalf in July 2024. The ACLU argues that his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating on the basis of sex. While the text of Title VII doesn’t mention gender, Zinski’s case leaned on the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. There, the high court held that an employer violates Title VII when firing someone because he or she claims to be transgender or gay.
But the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock didn’t resolve cases involving religious rights. Liberty University contends it has a constitutional right to make employment decisions based on its religious beliefs, even regarding sex and gender. The First Amendment right to religious autonomy protects the school’s religious employment decisions from judicial second-guessing, Liberty said in a court filing. And the “ministerial exception”—also derived from the First Amendment—gives the school discretion over employees central to its mission, it added. Liberty argued both principles applied to Zinski’s firing.
The university asked a federal court to dismiss the case, but in February 2025, a District Court judge denied the school’s motion. The judge found that Liberty can’t discriminate against sex or gender, regardless of its religious motivation. “To decide that sex discrimination is acceptable so long as it is religiously motivated would allow employers to achieve all manner of discrimination under the banner of religion,” the judge said.
The following month, Liberty appealed to the 4th Circuit. Multiple colleges, universities, and religious institutions filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Liberty, contending that religious organizations must be able to freely make employment decisions based on their beliefs.
On the other side, nearly two dozen state attorneys general filed briefs in support of Zinski. In a statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta claimed that Liberty University is weaponizing the First Amendment to justify discriminating against employees.
The church autonomy doctrine and the ministerial exception both protect Liberty, said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represents the university. The school has a right to be free from government interference in internal matters such as doctrine, Staver argued. He said that Zinski, who claims to be a Christian, is trying to “supplant” Liberty’s doctrine with his “different faith.”
Judge Wynn asked both sides if a ruling in favor of Liberty would allow a religious institution to hire on the basis of other characteristics, such as race, if those were mentioned in doctrinal statements. “Is there anything that would prohibit a church from having a [doctrinal] statement prohibiting interracial marriage?” Wynn asked.
Staver responded that there are competing constitutional principles that ensure race is protected.
Judge Marvin Quattlebaum said while he appreciated the racial discrimination concern, the flipside concern is whether churches can be forced to hire someone who goes against its beliefs. He asked ACLU of Virginia attorney Matthew Callahan if a Christian church with 16 employees must hire someone who claims to be transgender, in spite of the church’s beliefs, for a non-ministerial role, such as janitor.
Callahan said a church should be required to make the hire in that situation, arguing that the ministerial exception only applies to those in direct ministering roles, which does not include roles like janitors or IT.
Since Bostock wasn’t a case involving a religious entity, courts need a ruling in a case like this to balance out its protections for gender with religious rights, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston. Organizations need to have protection against violating their sincerely held beliefs, he said.
Blackman anticipates that the 4th Circuit will rule against Liberty, as he described this appeals court as “very liberal.” He noted that the race issue Wynn brought up was likely a “red herring,” since laws involving race discrimination can never be legally justified, while sex discrimination can be justified in certain contexts.
Staver told me after the arguments that Liberty must be allowed to convey its religious mission through all its employees, even those in IT. Liberty argued in its filing that Zinski’s presence on its campus is “antithetical to its religious mission and sends the message that Liberty endorses Zinski’s sin.”
Zinski’s female hormones caused external physical changes that would send a message every day to students of “open defiance and rebellion against Liberty’s doctrinal statement,” Staver said.
“If Liberty taught in the classroom or in its doctrinal statement that God created us in his image, that there’s only two sexes, male and female, but then allowed the employees to do exactly the opposite, Liberty would be viewed as a hypocrite, and would not be able to have any credibility regarding its faith and doctrine,” Staver said.
The 9th Circuit has ruled favorably for religious employers in two similar cases, Staver added. In January, the court found that a Washington state homeless ministry has a right to hire only co-religionists for non-ministerial roles. Last summer, the court upheld World Vision’s decision to rescind an employment offer to an applicant who was in a same-sex relationship.
Staver said he anticipates Liberty’s case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, as both sides are likely to contest a ruling against them. “Our goal is to take it to the Supreme Court, one way or another,” he said, “so that Liberty University can be protected, as well as other religious institutions, and that would set a precedent that would last for generations.”
