An article from Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

Title VII’s religious exceptions do not apply to the situation at hand, in which a transgender worker was fired for disclosing her status and intent to transition, the court found.

Published Feb. 26, 2025 Emilie Shumway Editor

• post
• share
• post
• print
• email
• license

Liberty University, located in Lynchburg, Virginia, is seen above. The university must face discrimination charges from a transgender worker who said she was fired for transitioning. "Liberty University" by Taber Andrew Bain is licensed under CC BY 2.0

First published on

Listen to the article 3 min This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

A worker who was fired by Liberty University for disclosing her transgender status and announcing her intention to transition may proceed with her employment discrimination case against the institution, a Virginia district court judge ruled Feb. 21 (Zinski v. Liberty University). 

The case involved a worker who was hired in February 2023 as an IT apprentice at the university’s IT help desk. She received positive performance reviews until July of that year, when she emailed Liberty’s HR department, explaining that she was a transgender woman, had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and would be legally changing her name, according to court documents. An HR representative promised to follow up with her.

waitToLoadAds.push(function() { googletag.cmd.push(function() { if (window.dfp_visibility == 'mobile' ) { googletag.display('dfp-hybrid1-mobile'); googletag.pubads().addEventListener('slotRenderEnded', function (event) { var adUnitPath = '/21662595662/highereddive/highereddivehybrid1'; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + '-mobile'; var selector = '.pf-comments__ad-wrapper [data-container-ad-unit-id="' + adUnitPathWithVisibility + '"]'; if (!$(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').hasClass('borders')) { $(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').addClass('borders') } } }); } }); }); waitToLoadAds.push(function() { googletag.cmd.push(function() { if (window.dfp_visibility == 'desktop' ) { googletag.display('dfp-hybrid2-desktop'); googletag.pubads().addEventListener('slotRenderEnded', function (event) { var adUnitPath = '/21662595662/highereddive/highereddivehybrid2'; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + '-desktop'; var selector = '.pf-comments__ad-wrapper [data-container-ad-unit-id="' + adUnitPathWithVisibility + '"]'; if (!$(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').hasClass('borders')) { $(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').addClass('borders') } } }); } }); });

Shortly thereafter, after hearing nothing, the worker reached out again and was scheduled for a meeting later the same day. She was presented with a letter terminating her employment and explaining that her decision to transition violated Liberty’s religious beliefs and its Doctrinal Statement. 

In response to the worker’s lawsuit, Liberty University argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (among other laws) allow religious employers to discriminate on the basis of religion, contending that the worker’s firing was religion-based rather than sex-based in discriminatory nature. 

While Judge Norman Moon appreciated that the case presents a “novel question of law in the Fourth Circuit,” he ultimately found current case law didn’t fully or clearly support the university’s argument. 

“If discharge based upon transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII generally, it follows that the same should be true for religious employers, who, it has been shown, were not granted an exception from the prohibition against sex discrimination,” Judge Moon said in his order denying the university’s motion to dismiss the case. “They have been entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion but on no other grounds.”

Judge Moon pointed out that “no source of law … answers the question before us,” but “we find that a decision to the contrary would portend far-reaching and detrimental consequences for our system of civil law and the separation between church and state.”

“This case — and the law it implicates — 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,” Moon wrote. “We find that our holding today — that religious institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, even if motivated by religion — most appropriately maintains this balance.”

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• purchase licensing rights

Filed Under: Policy & Legal, Faculty and Staff Higher Ed Dive news delivered to your inbox

Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts

Email:

• Select user consent: By signing up to receive our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Sign up A valid email address is required. Please select at least one newsletter. Editors' picks

• PeopleImages via Getty Images Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

  Higher education institutions could lose access to financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead students, new guidance says. 

  By Natalie Schwartz • Jan. 16, 2025
• vm via Getty Images Deep Dive 6 higher education trends to watch in 2025

  College leaders will likely grapple with budgetary strains, federal policy shifts and continued enrollment challenges in the year ahead.

  By Natalie Schwartz, Laura Spitalniak and Ben Unglesbee • Updated Jan. 14, 2025