Liberty University Lawsuit: Zinski Firing and Fourth Circuit Appeal

The Liberty University transgender firing lawsuit is Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc., a federal Title VII case brought by Ellenor Zinski, a transgender woman fired from Liberty’s IT helpdesk in 2023 after she told human resources she is transgender and planned to legally change her name. A federal district judge refused to dismiss the case in February 2025, and as of mid-2026 it is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which heard oral arguments in March 2026.¹

Who Ellenor Zinski Is and Why She Was Fired

Zinski was hired into Liberty University’s IT department in early 2023. About three months in, her supervisor rated her performance as “above average” and described her as “on the path to success.”² Shortly after, she emailed HR to disclose that she is a transgender woman and intended to legally change her name.³

A month of silence followed. “Every single day I remember just checking my emails and seeing if I had any correspondence at all, and every day there was nothing. It was anxiety-inducing,” she later told reporters.⁴ She was eventually called into a meeting with the heads of HR and IT, where officials read a termination notice aloud. The notice cited “denying biological and chromosomal sex assigned at birth” as the basis for firing her, referencing the university’s Doctrinal Statement, which classifies “denial of birth sex by self-identification with a different gender” as a “sinful act prohibited by God.”²

Zinski describes herself as a devout Christian and an active member of Trinity Episcopal Church. “Christianity has been so weaponized against the LGBTQ community, but there doesn’t need to be a conflict: you can be transgender and Christian. I am,” she said.³

What the Lawsuit Claims

On July 29, 2024, the ACLU of Virginia and the pro bono firm Butler Curwood filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The case, Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc. (No. 6:24-cv-00041), was assigned to Senior Judge Norman K. Moon.¹

The complaint alleges that Liberty violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination covers discrimination based on transgender status.⁵ Zinski seeks reinstatement or front pay, $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, back pay, attorney’s fees, and a declaration that the university’s policy violates federal law.⁴

Wyatt Rolla, the ACLU of Virginia’s senior transgender rights attorney and lead counsel, put the theory of the case plainly: “Liberty explicitly fired Ellenor, an employee who had previously received glowing evaluations, solely for being transgender. That is against the law.”⁵

Liberty University’s Defenses

Liberty University, represented by Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel, moved to dismiss the lawsuit in October 2024. The motion raised five overlapping theories, each aimed at shielding a religious employer from Title VII liability for a gender-identity-based firing.¹

Liberty argued first that Title VII’s religious exemptions in Sections 702 and 703 gave it what it called an “absolute right to employ people who adhere to its doctrinal statement,” and that Bostock did not reach religiously motivated firings.⁶ It argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) foreclosed the claim because employing a transgender person would substantially burden its religious exercise. It invoked the First Amendment’s ministerial exception, which protects religious institutions’ employment decisions about employees who serve ministerial or religious functions. It raised freedom of expressive association, contending that complying with Title VII would force it to undermine its religious message. And it invoked ecclesiastical abstention, arguing civil courts should stay out of internal religious governance.⁷

At the Fourth Circuit oral argument, Staver framed the stakes for Liberty starkly: “If Liberty can’t actually hire employees that are consistent with its faith, then Liberty has no faith.”⁸

What the District Court Ruled

On February 21, 2025, Judge Moon denied Liberty’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, rejecting each of the five defenses. He acknowledged the case presented “novel questions of law” in the Fourth Circuit.⁹

On the Title VII exemptions, Judge Moon applied the “but-for causation” standard from Bostock and held that an employer cannot convert a sex discrimination claim into a religious discrimination claim just because the decision was religiously motivated. Religious employers, he wrote, “were not granted an exception from the prohibition against sex discrimination. They have been entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion but on no other grounds.”⁹

RFRA did not help Liberty, the court held, because that statute applies only to government action, not lawsuits between private parties. The ministerial exception did not apply because Zinski worked in IT, “did not engage in any teaching, had limited contact with students, and had no religious duties.”⁷ On expressive association, the court acknowledged that Liberty engages in protected expression but concluded her continued employment would not “significantly burden Liberty’s ability to maintain its views,” given her limited role. On ecclesiastical abstention, the court found it could resolve the dispute through secular legal reasoning without interpreting scripture or doctrine.¹

Judge Moon named the underlying tension directly. “This case points to the delicate balance between two competing and laudable objectives: eradicating discrimination in employment, on the one hand, and affording religious institutions the freedom to cultivate a workforce that conforms to its doctrinal principles, on the other,” he wrote. Ruling for the university, he cautioned, would “portend far-reaching and detrimental consequences for our system of civil law and the separation between church and state.”⁹

The Fourth Circuit Appeal

On April 3, 2025, the district court certified the ruling for interlocutory appeal, letting the Fourth Circuit take up the legal questions before trial.¹ The Fourth Circuit accepted the appeal in May 2025 (case numbers 25-1228 and 25-1581),¹⁰ and the district court stayed all discovery pending the outcome.

Oral arguments took place March 17, 2026, before Judges Wynn, Quattlebaum, and Senior Judge Floyd.¹¹ The panel pressed both sides. Judge Quattlebaum questioned how far Liberty’s theory would reach: “What’s the scope of religious organizations or religious affiliations that would be subjected to this?” Staver argued for Liberty that the First Amendment’s protection of church autonomy required reversal; Matthew Callahan argued for Zinski that the firing was straightforward discrimination under federal law.¹²

The appeal drew a large slate of amici. A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia, led by Massachusetts and including California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and Colorado, filed a brief supporting Zinski. The states argued that accepting Liberty’s reading of the First Amendment would “decimate anti-discrimination efforts.”¹³¹⁴ The National Employment Lawyers Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and religious organizations including Metropolitan Community Churches and Keshet also filed briefs on Zinski’s side.¹⁰

No decision has issued as of mid-2026. Legal observers anticipate a ruling within several months, and expect the losing side to seek review at the U.S. Supreme Court.¹²

Why the Case Matters Beyond Zinski

The Zinski case sits at the intersection of two legal currents the Supreme Court has not reconciled. Bostock v. Clayton County established in 2020 that firing an employee for being transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII, but that case did not involve a religious employer. How far religious exemptions extend against Title VII claims remains open.

The Fourth Circuit grappled with a related question in Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, decided in May 2024. There, a Catholic high school fired a teacher after he publicly announced his same-sex engagement. The trial court ruled for the teacher, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the teacher qualified as a “messenger” of the school’s faith under the ministerial exception and was therefore outside Title VII’s reach.¹⁵ The line the court drew was between employees who help convey a religious institution’s message and those who do not. In Zinski’s case, Judge Moon placed an IT helpdesk worker plainly on the secular side of that line.

The Fourth Circuit is also weighing Doe v. Catholic Relief Services (No. 25-1569), argued the same day as Zinski. It involves a non-ministerial employee alleging discrimination based on his same-sex marriage and raises overlapping questions about the scope of Title VII’s religious employer exemption, RFRA, and ecclesiastical abstention.¹⁶ The Maryland district court ruled for the employee after Maryland’s highest court interpreted the state’s religious entity exemption narrowly, requiring that an employee’s duties “directly further the core mission” of the religious organization.¹⁷ Parties and amici in both cases have flagged the overlap and the possibility of coordinated rulings.

Whichever way the Fourth Circuit rules, the case is likely to shape how far a religious employer can go in firing an LGBTQ worker whose job has no religious duties, and it may be the vehicle the Supreme Court eventually uses to answer that question.

1
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc.
2
ACLU of Virginia. Liberty University Fired Ellenor Zinski for Being Trans
3
ACLU of Virginia. Zinski v. Liberty University
4
KATV. Former Liberty University Worker Speaks Out About Job Termination for Being Transgender
5
VPM. Virginia ACLU Liberty University Lawsuit Transgender Title VII
6
WSET. Liberty University Cites First Amendment and Religious Freedom in Firing Transgender Employee
7
Jackson Lewis. Moving Forward: District Court Denies Religious University’s Motion to Dismiss Transgender Ex-Employee’s Title VII Suit
8
Campus Reform. Fourth Circuit Weighs Religious Freedom Case Fired Transgender Liberty University Employee
9
Higher Ed Dive. Liberty University Former Trans Worker’s Discrimination Claim Lawsuit Judge
10
CourtListener. Ellenor Zinski v. Liberty University, Incorporated
11
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Court Calendar, March 17, 2026
12
WSLS. Court of Appeals Weighs Transgender Discrimination Case Against Liberty University
13
Law360. State AGs Back Trans Worker in Liberty U’s 4th Circ Appeal
14
Illinois Attorney General. Zinski Amicus Brief for MA et al.
15
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, No. 22-1440
16
CourtListener. John Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
17
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Doe v. Catholic Relief Services