The implications for religious freedom in Zinski v. Liberty University

The latest battle in the sexual revolution, placing religious freedom at risk, emerged in Zinski v. Liberty University (Feb. 2025). Controversy arose after Liberty officials hired Jonathan Zinski, who agreed to follow the school’s Doctrinal Statement, which prevents individuals from denying their birth sex by identifying with a different gender. Once Zinski’s probationary employment period ended and he violated its terms by publicly identifying as a “transgender female”, officials terminated his employment.

When Zinski sued Liberty for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging sex-based discrimination, a federal trial court in Virginia denied its motions to dismiss the case. Liberty subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on March 25, 2026.

In light of the significant issues Zinski raises, this article reviews the factual and judicial history as the case awaits resolution before reflecting on its significance.

Zinski v. Liberty University

When officials at Liberty University hired Jonathan Zinski as an information services apprentice for its technology helpdesk in February 2023, he digitally signed an agreement acknowledging he would abide by its Doctrinal Statement.

Among its provisions, the Statement requires employees to affirm that because individuals are born as male or female in the image of God the “denial of birth sex by self-identification with a different gender” is prohibited as sinful conduct.

In signing the Statement, Zinski failed to disclose that for at least four months prior to doing so, he was taking the hormone estrogen to “transition”. After his 90-day probationary employment period ended and he publicly identified as a transgender female (“Elleanor Zinski”), officials terminated his employment.

Zinski then retained the American Civil Liberties Union in suing Liberty. Liberty Counsel, a Christian public interest law firm, represented the university.

Zinski claimed that officials violated Title VII’s prohibition against employment discrimination, including religion and sex, and, as expanded by the Supreme Court, gender identity.

Judicial History

Trial Court

Near the start of his opinion, the trial judge observed that “[t]he parties do not dispute…that Liberty fired Zinski because of her transgender status; they solely dispute whether Title VII proscribes such action, and/or whether Liberty may claim any statutory or constitutional defenses to Title VII liability.”

Based on Fourth Circuit precedent, the judge contended that while they may base employment decisions on religious preferences, “Title VII does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make those same decisions on the basis of race, sex, or national origin.”

Further, although not relying entirely on Bostock v. Clayton County wherein the Supreme Court, in an act of judicial activism usurping congressional authority, re-wrote Title VII to include sexual orientation as a protected class in a case not involving a religious employer, the judge rejected Liberty’s motion to dismiss as meritless.

Liberty next unsuccessfully attempted to rely on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which forbids the federal government from substantially burdening individuals’ free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest carried out by the least restrictive means. The judge denied this request because the law is inapplicable to private parties.

The court then rebuffed Liberty’s reliance on Title VII’s ministerial exception because Zinski’s job did not directly relate to work connected with carrying on its religious activities. As to freedom of association, the court conceded that while Liberty engages in protected First Amendment activity communicating its beliefs, because any burden Title VII imposed on its expressive interest was minimal, this defense lacked merit.

Finally, the court rejected Liberty’s ecclesiastical abstention defense, which affords religious organizations exclusive authority over matters of faith and doctrine free from state intervention. Again relying on Fourth Circuit precedent, the judge emphasized that “‘[w]here no spiritual function is involved, the First Amendment does not stay the application of a generally applicable law such as Title VII to the religious employer.’”

The judge thus allowed the case to proceed subject to Liberty’s appeal.

Fourth Circuit

During oral arguments, the Fourth Circuit questioned the reach of the ministerial exception following the Supreme Court’s having expanded Title VII to protect gender identity.

The panel also queried whether Liberty could dismiss Zinski over its religious objections to those attempting to transition their sexes.

Analysis and commentary

First, all persons, including those experiencing gender dysphoria, such as Zinski (who has left the country due to alleged safety and acceptance concerns), have the right to live as they wish, free from discrimination. However, it remains to be seen whether Zinski and others can sign agreements accepting their faith-based institutions’ legitimate expectations to comply with those institutions’ sincere religious beliefs and then demand that officials violate their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by claiming to be victims of employment and sex discrimination because they refuse to live up to their word.

Setting other considerations aside for a moment, on an issue not before the courts, is whether Liberty officials could have fired Zinski for misrepresentation or even fraud in signing the Doctrinal Statement because, by already taking medications as part of the process of transitioning, he had no intention of complying with its provisions. Even if one concedes for the sake of discussion that Zinski was not trying to mislead Liberty officials in failing to disclose his “transitioning”, a biological impossibility in light of the scientific reality that males have XX chromosomes while females have XY genes, they would not likely have hired him had he been truthful. As such, it is surprising that Liberty did not raise the counter-claim that because Zinski was arguably setting it up for litigation when he signed an agreement he had no intention of honoring, the dispute should have been dismissed due to his lack of honesty, as lacking genuine and mutual contractual agreement between the parties.

At issue on appeal is ultimately whether religious organizations such as Liberty University retain their First Amendment right to freedom of religion under Title VII and the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine by being able to require staff members to abide by having voluntarily agreed to comply with its Doctrinal Statement as a condition of employment.

A closely related concern is whether Liberty’s officials should be the judges of whether employees meet its standards, a position the Supreme Court adopted regarding the ministerial exception. That is ultimately grounded in the First Amendment Religion Clauses rather than its manifestation in Title VII, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court held that despite a teacher’s allegation that her primary duties were secular, secular officials had to defer to the judgment of the faith-based school’s leaders in this regard. As such, Title VII should not be interpreted as requiring officials at faith-based institutions to hire and retain those whose personal conduct directly contradicts institutional values. This is especially true here because Zinski signed Liberty’s Doctrinal Statement while already “transitioning”, clearly demonstrating that he had no intention to honor his word.

Further, Zinski was not in a position that qualified as ministerial. Yet, because Zinski interacted personally in helping others with technical concerns, an argument can be made that he had to comply with Liberty’s Doctrinal Statement insofar as his work helped to advance the University’s institutional mission. Moreover, it makes no sense that the trial court dismissed Liberty’s ecclesiastical abstention defense as minimal because, in helping others, Zinski clearly violated its Doctrinal Statement.

It remains to be seen whether the Fourth Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court will interpret Title VII’s ministerial exception and/or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine expansively as including all staff.

Because both Liberty University and Zinski have made it clear that they will appeal to the Supreme Court if they lose at the Fourth Circuit, which is unlikely to rule for a few months, stay tuned for a follow-up because this case has the potential to have a significant impact on religious freedom in the United States.