Christian university facing lawsuit for firing transgender employee; claims suit is attempt at entrapment 

Is it discrimination against a transgender person or an attempt to entrap a Christian university? 

Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, is embroiled in a lawsuit filed by a former employee who claims he was dismissed simply because he was transgender.  

The school says it was right to fire him because he violated a doctrinal statement he signed prior to being hired rejecting trans ideology.  Liberty had asked for a dismissal of the case citing Title VII exceptions to the Civil Rights act that permit religious organizations to terminate employees who don’t conform to doctrinal rules. 

Lawyers for the school also say the man, who was then known as Jonathan Zinski, intended to entrap the school, having started taking sex change hormones before he was hired and waiting until his time as a probationary employee was done before announcing his transgenderism. 

Nevertheless, Norman K. Moon, an 88-year-old Clinton-appointed judge, refused to throw out Zinski’s case, citing the recent decision in Bostock v Clayton County, GA that found employers can’t fire employees simply because they are gay or transgendered. 

The precedent in Bostock is being used in several cases to try to change the definition of sex to mean gender identity under the Civil Rights act.    

Zinski’s firing

Six months into employment, and after several positive performance reviews, Zinski sent a letter to Liberty saying that he “identified as a trans woman, had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy, . . . and intended to legally change her name” from Jonathan Zinski to Ellenor Zinski, said the court opinion in previewing the facts.  

After not receiving a reply from human resources, Zinski allegedly experienced “fear and anxiety” and at one point “she broke down crying,” the court writes.  

Zinski’s anxiety was so severe “that she vomited.”   

But the judge’s opinion apparently contains at least one factual error by the 88-year-old jurist. 

In the background to the case, the court’s decision said that Zinski sent the letter notifying Liberty of the plaintiff’s gender dysphoria on July 5, 2023.  

“One month later, Zinski had still not received the follow-up email that Liberty had promised,” the court noted.  

But in the next paragraph the court said that Zinski followed up on July 8, 2023, just three days after the notification of transgender status was sent, and was given a meeting the same day, at which Zinski was terminated.  

In arguing for a dismissal of the case, Liberty said that religious institutions are exempt from civil rights cases that normally apply under Title VII when they involve doctrinal issues.  

“Liberty University is given explicit First Amendment protection to decide which employees align with its religious mission and beliefs, and to associate with and employ only those individuals who hold its religious beliefs,” said the university in its motion to dismiss. “This Court is not permitted to second guess its judgment. Zinski’s request for this Court to ignore that constitutional demand and probe Liberty University’s religious justifications must be rejected as a matter of law.”  

In the decision, however, Moon, latched on to the Bostock decision.  

Moon said that religious exemptions still don’t allow discrimination “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 

He then cited Bostock explicitly on page 7 of the 70-page ruling, which he said for the purposes of employment, defined the term “sex” to encompass gender identity, not just biological sex.  

The judge cited a 2024 case from the 4^th Circuit that noted, “An unanswered question in Bostock is whether a religious employer might have a viable statutory or constitutional defense to Title VII claims of sexual orientation discrimination.” 

A ‘manufactured’ case?

Liberty has argued that Zinski manufactured the case so the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could sue the religious school. Liberty contends that Zinski waited until the probationary period covering employment was finished before notifying the university of the change in gender.  

“Four months before applying to Liberty University, he began taking female hormones” even as he signed the agreement on doctrinal issues legally required by many religious institutions as a condition of employment, said the university. 

Liberty will appeal the judge’s decision to let the lawsuit move forward.  

“Liberty Counsel will argue on appeal that federal law protects religious institutions to uphold their sincere Christian beliefs and to employ those who are aligned with its religious mission and beliefs,” said Liberty in a statement.  

Liberty’s legal counsel said that regardless of the Bostock decision, religious institutions still enjoy religious liberty under the Constitution and longstanding laws.  

“Liberty University has the right under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to uphold its sincere Christian religious beliefs and require its employees to do the same,” said Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, which is acting as attorneys for the university in the case. 

(Media credit: screenshot Good Morning America; stock image)