A federal judge in Virginia has ruled that one of the nation’s largest Christian universities cannot claim Title VII protection in its firing of a male worker who only came out as transgender after being hired and completing his 90-day trial period as a new employee.
The ruling is seen as setting the stage for an eventual U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling on transgender rights versus religious beliefs in faith-based workplaces.
In his Feb. 21 ruling, U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, concluded that Liberty University’s employment of Jonathan Zinski does not interfere with its religious views, contrary to the college’s arguments in the case.
“Liberty’s continued employment of Zinksi does not significantly burden Liberty’s ability to maintain its views and associate for its expressed purposes,” Moon wrote.
Moon made the ruling in rejection of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the university wrongfully terminated Zinski’s employment for being transgender.
He also ruled that the conservative university, located in the right-leaning Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, cannot, as he put it, “erect a shield against anti discrimination laws by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its message.”
According to documents in the case, as part of his onboarding process, Zinski digitally signed an agreement to abide by Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and policies that regard transgender ideology as violating its religious convictions and stipulate that job applicants who are trans will not be considered for employment.
Already Taking Hormones
Only after completing its standard three-month employment probationary period, the university alleges, Zinski revealed he had been taking female hormones four months before he was hired as part of his plan to identify as female.
Zinski also announced he would prefer to go by the first name Ellenor instead of his birth name Jonathan after being hired.
In a statement on the ruling, the conservative law group Liberty Counsel, which represents Liberty University in the case, accused Zinski of using deception to deliberately set up the college in an attempt to undermine its religious beliefs and mission.
“Liberty University’s doctrinal statement clearly states that human beings were directly created in the very image of God as either biologically male or female from the womb, and it is a sinful act prohibited by God to deny one’s birth sex by self-identification with a different gender,” it said. “Zinski acknowledged all of this despite knowing that he was four months into executing his plan to act in opposition to Liberty University’s doctrinal statement and employment requirements by denying his biological sex.”
Liberty Counsel has vowed to appeal the ruling and indicated it sees it as potentially reaching all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It must first pass through the hands of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees appeals of Virginia’s federal courts.
Its ultimate outcome is expected to have sweeping implications for how transgender workers fit into the interpretation of Title VII, which protects against discrimination in the workplace.
Religious Freedom
In its memorandum of law seeking dismissal of Zinski’s lawsuit, Liberty Counsel argued that the federal law protects religious institutions’ right to uphold their sincere Christian beliefs and to employ those who are aligned with their religious mission and beliefs.
But one key issue both Liberty Counsel and Moon agreed on is the lack of clarification from the Supreme Court in its previous rulings about federally protected religious rights in the workplace under Title VII specific to individuals claiming to be transgender.
“Liberty Counsel will press both the Fourth Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court to recognize what the First Amendment and Title VII both require,” said Liberty Counsel’s founder and lead counselor Mat Staver.
In the meantime, Moon has given Zinski the green light to enter the discovery phase in his lawsuit against the Virginia university.
Court documents show Zinski, who was employed as an IT apprentice to assist students and staff with computer issues, has already presented written reviews praising his job performance, to back his discrimination claims.
According to his complaint, his supervisor assessed his performance “as above average” and “on the path to success.”
Moon, in denying the university’s motion to dismiss, concluded that it wasn’t “even clear” if Zinski had any “spiritual function” at Liberty University “that would impinge upon” the college’s First Amendment rights to religion freedom.
In its response to the dismissal motion, the university cited a federal court ruling out of Missouri that favored a Catholic-run shelter for pregnant women who refused to abide by a city ordinance that required it to hire pro-abortion employees.
In the case, the court found that forcing the Catholic shelter “to associate with individuals who did not adhere” to the church’s values violated its religious rights.
“Liberty University has the freedom not to associate with individuals, such as Zinski, whose religious beliefs and conduct are directly contrary to the vital religious mission in which Liberty University is engaged,” the university says. “The First Amendment protects its decision to terminate Zinski, and Zinski’s Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice.”