No Sanctuary from Title VII: Judge Rejects Religious Defenses in Transgender Firing Case

“We are terminating you for ‘denying biological and chromosomal sex assigned at birth.’”

That’s what a transgender woman alleges HR told her when she was fired from her job at a religious university. In response, she sued for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court made clear that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. However, the Court left open the question of whether religious exemptions could apply.

A federal judge in Virginia just weighed in, and the answer—at least for now—is no. Last week, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, rejecting every legal defense raised. Let’s break down why each argument failed.

The Employer’s Defenses—And Why They Failed

1. Title VII’s Religious Exemptions

Employer’s Argument: Since it is a religious institution, the employer claimed it was exempt from Title VII’s rules against sex discrimination.
Court’s Decision: The judge ruled that these exemptions only apply to religious discrimination, not sex discrimination. Just because the employer’s decision was based on religious beliefs doesn’t mean it can ignore Title VII.

2. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

Employer’s Argument: Enforcing Title VII would violate its religious rights under RFRA.
Court’s Decision: The judge explained that RFRA protects against government actions, not lawsuits between private individuals. Even if RFRA applied, the employer did not prove that following Title VII would be a serious burden on its religious exercise.

3. Ministerial Exception

Employer’s Argument: The employee’s job fell under the “ministerial exception,” which allows religious employers to make certain employment decisions without government interference.
Court’s Decision: The employee worked as an IT apprentice and had no religious duties. The ministerial exception applies only to employees who perform religious functions, so it did not apply here.

4. First Amendment – Expressive Association

Employer’s Argument: Forcing the employer to keep an employee who contradicts its religious beliefs would violate its First Amendment rights.
Court’s Decision: The court recognized that religious employers have First Amendment rights, but it found that enforcing Title VII placed only a small burden on them. The government’s interest in preventing workplace discrimination was more important.

5. Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

Employer’s Argument: Courts shouldn’t be involved in religious matters, and this lawsuit should be dismissed under that principle.
Court’s Decision: The judge ruled that this case is about employment law, not religious doctrine. Courts can apply neutral laws like Title VII without getting involved in religious disputes.

What Employers Should Know

This ruling does not mean the employer has lost the case—only that the lawsuit will move forward. However, it sends a clear message: religious employers are not automatically exempt from federal anti-discrimination laws.