California Attorney General Rob Bonta has joined a group of 20 attorneys general in urging a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that allows an employee to sue Liberty University for sex-based discrimination. The case involves Ellenor Zinski, a transgender woman who says she was fired after Liberty University found out about her gender identity.
Zinski started working at the university’s IT Help Desk in February 2023. After her 90-day probation period ended, she informed human resources that she was transgender and planned to change her first name legally. Just a month later, Liberty University terminated her. The school claimed its status as a religious institution allowed it to fire her based on her transgender status.
In July 2024, Zinski filed a lawsuit, saying her firing broke Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination at work based on sex. A federal judge agreed in April 2025 and denied Liberty’s call to dismiss the case. The university then appealed that decision.
Bonta and the coalition argue in their court brief that Liberty University’s claim—that the First Amendment lets them exclude people to protect their religious identity—is not supported by existing law when it comes to employment. They also say the “ministerial exception” — which lets religious groups choose certain key employees without following discrimination laws — doesn’t apply here because Zinski’s job was administrative and not religious in nature.
Bonta said he is troubled by Liberty University’s use of the First Amendment to justify what he calls clear discrimination. “No one should lose their job simply for being who they are,” he said.
States joining California in the brief include Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
This case highlights the ongoing debate over how anti-discrimination laws apply to religious organizations. The coming decision from the Fourth Circuit Court could have a major impact on similar cases across the country.