Refusing AI at work: how religious accommodations work, and where they stop

No US federal law gives workers a general right to refuse AI tools an employer requires. Title VII can require a reasonable accommodation for a sincerely held belief, including a non-theistic one, but no court has yet ruled on an AI case.

No federal law in the United States gives employees a general right to refuse AI tools that an employer tells them to use. What exists instead are narrower accommodation laws, chiefly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for religion and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disability. A recent case at the University of Kentucky shows that the religious route can work, at least when an employer agrees to it.

The question has moved from theory to news because TechCrunch reported on October 29, 2026, that David Durman, a nontheistic humanist, secured a religious exemption from using AI in his job. The report is accurate but easy to over-read. The outcome was one employer's internal decision, not a court ruling, and no belief in a god was required only because the law's definition of religion is broader than many people assume.

What happened at the University of Kentucky

According to TechCrunch, Durman sought out the American Humanist Association (AHA) to learn how he could gain legal protection against having to use AI at work. His stated reasoning concerns moral agency: he argues that people become moral actors by actively applying their own minds, and that using AI diminishes that process.

The request was preemptive. A copy of the TechCrunch article indicates that Durman works in an administrative role supporting researchers who apply for grants, and that he had not actually been required to use AI. Colleagues and leadership had recommended trying the tools, so he asked for protection in case the suggestion hardened into a mandate. One secondary report adds that the university had been asking employees to use tools such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot.

What the university said

In statements to TechCrunch, reproduced in a syndicated copy, a University of Kentucky spokesperson said the school reviews religious accommodation requests one at a time, weighing the employee's job responsibilities and the circumstances of the request. The university concluded that an accommodation could be provided while Durman continued to perform the essential functions of his position. The spokesperson added that accommodations may be revisited as technology and job duties change.

That last point matters. The arrangement is not necessarily permanent, and it is tied to the specifics of one job. Breitbart, citing a Tom's Hardware report that was not independently reviewed, says the accommodation does not remove all contact with AI: Durman still attends meetings and works beside colleagues who use the tools, and he may have to submit materials to AI systems when a task requires it. That detail rests on a single secondary source and should be read with caution.

An earlier case, and the limits of the record

Durman's case is not the first reported. Business Insider previously reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an AI-related religious exemption in May 2026. The original article was not available for review, but a Legal500 commentary on employer risk cites a Business Insider story dated June 5, 2026, which indicates that the article exists.

The same Legal500 piece says Pope Leo XIV released his first encyclical, "Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence," on May 25, 2026. TechCrunch's report also refers to Leo XIV. Alexandria Huiskens, a staff attorney at the AHA, told TechCrunch that concern about AI and human dignity runs through several traditions, including Catholic teaching, Universalism and Humanism. The AHA is an advocacy group and an interested party, so its framing is not a neutral account.

What counts as a religious belief under federal law

The headline claim, that a person does not need to believe in a god, tracks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) own guidance. The EEOC says religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views, according to a Department of Labor page restating that guidance. The EEOC's religious discrimination page similarly says the law protects not only traditional religions but also people with sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

The protection is also not limited to beliefs shared by large groups. The EEOC's compliance manual states that religious beliefs can include unique views held by a few people or even one person. That helps explain why a humanist, a Unitarian Universalist and a Catholic could all plausibly bring a request grounded in different moral reasoning.

What does not qualify

The same Department of Labor page says social, political and economic philosophies, along with personal preferences, are not religious beliefs. By that test, a dislike of AI, a worry about productivity, or a privacy, environmental or political objection is unlikely to succeed on its own. That conclusion is an inference from the EEOC's definitions, since no AI-specific ruling confirms it.

The line is therefore not drawn between religious and nonreligious labels. It turns on whether the belief is a sincere moral or religious-style conviction held with comparable strength. Some commentary online claims that ethical, political or privacy objections categorically "do not qualify," but that oversimplifies the EEOC test.

Sincerity is the gatekeeper

Accommodation applies only to sincerely held beliefs. According to EEOC guidance on religious garb and grooming, an employer should not automatically treat a belief as insincere because the practice departs from common tenets of the religion. The same guidance says beliefs and the degree of adherence can change over time and still be sincere. For a newer concern such as AI, where no established doctrine exists, sincerity is likely to be the contested question, though the brief records no case that has tested it.

What an employer must show to say no

Once an employer knows that a sincerely held belief conflicts with a work requirement, the EEOC says it must accommodate the employee unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The meaning of that phrase changed in 2023. In Groff v. DeJoy, decided unanimously on June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court held that an employer denying a religious accommodation must show that granting it would cause "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business," according to the syllabus posted by Justia.

The Court rejected the older reading from TWA v. Hardison (1977), under which more than a "de minimis" cost was enough, according to the Harvard Law Review. The Congressional Research Service adds that employers must consider the options available and cannot declare one form of accommodation an undue hardship and then refuse to look at alternatives. Coworker burden counts only when tied to effects on the business, and coworker animosity toward religion cannot qualify as undue hardship.

Some older EEOC pages still show the pre-Groff wording. The agency carries a notice that Groff supersedes any contrary information on its webpages and documents.

How this might apply to AI

No appellate decision squarely addresses a religious request not to use workplace AI, according to Legal500's law-firm commentary, so employers are reasoning by analogy from general Title VII principles. A truncated Haynes Boone document says no reported decision yet addresses a religious objection specifically to AI use, and that reported claims of this kind remain rare. The two law-firm pieces may not be independent of one another, and neither is a case-law search.

The Haynes Boone fragment sketches how an employer-side analysis might run, and it is analysis rather than law. If an employee has performed well without AI, an undue-hardship argument may be hard to make. An employer that already exempts people from a technology mandate for other reasons may struggle to refuse a sincere religious objector. If AI-enabled employees dramatically outperform others, the employer's case may be stronger.

How an employee requests an accommodation

The research behind this article supports researched context, not personal legal advice, and it identifies no required form or script. According to the EEOC, an employer's duty arises once it is aware that an accommodation is needed, and the law contains no statutory magic wording. In practice, that means the employee has to make the conflict between a sincere belief and a work requirement known to the employer.

In the Kentucky matter, the employee consulted a legal advocacy group before asking, and the university handled the request through its equal opportunity office, reviewing it individually. Law-firm advice aimed at employers recommends engaging in an interactive process when a religious objection to AI is raised. In other words, the expected sequence is a conversation about the objection and the job's duties, not a one-time yes or no.

Separate tracks for religion and disability

Religious and disability accommodations run through different processes. The Department of Labor page says federal agencies keep them separate, with separate forms, and that disability forms should not be used for a religious request. That rule applies to federal agencies rather than private employers, but it illustrates that the two legal tracks rest on different grounds and are not interchangeable.

Where protection ends: the Coinbase contrast and the disability route

The absence of a general right to refuse is visible in a different story. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said on the "Cheeky Pint" podcast in August 2025 that engineers who did not onboard AI coding tools were fired, according to TechCrunch. The company had bought enterprise licenses for GitHub Copilot and Cursor, and Digital Watch's summary says engineers were told to onboard within a week, with a Saturday meeting for those who had not and dismissals for people without valid reasons.

The account is limited. The number fired is unknown, Coinbase did not respond to TechCrunch's request for comment, and the CEO's own telling is the underlying source for the many reports. Nothing in the coverage suggests that anyone requested a religious or disability accommodation, so the episode shows what a mandate looks like without a legal claim, not how the law treats a request. Context on adoption comes from a GitHub survey of 500 US programmers at large companies, reported by Fortune, which found 92% already using AI coding tools; the survey year was not confirmed. Coverage also notes that writing code without AI assistance has become rare, which would make an accommodation harder to fit in some engineering jobs.

The disability route is unclear

The ADA applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals with disabilities, according to a TechServe Alliance summary. A Morgan Lewis summary says the EEOC's 2022 technical assistance stated that the ADA's accommodation duty may require waiving the use of AI tools in certain situations. That guidance, however, concerned AI used to assess or rate people, such as hiring screens, not tools that employees are told to use. No source reviewed applies the ADA to a mandate to use generative AI.

Two weakly sourced reports say the EEOC removed its dedicated AI technical-assistance documents from its website in January 2025, which would leave the 2022 guidance without current agency backing. That has not been verified against eeoc.gov. The relationship between religious and disability standards is also unsettled: the American Bar Association describes the ADA's standard as the higher bar for employers, while a Harvard Law Review note says courts might preserve a hierarchy between the two kinds of accommodation or keep drawing on both statutes together.

The agency is active on religious accommodation generally

The EEOC has continued to pursue religious accommodation failures in 2026. In a March 2026 press release about a lawsuit over a hospital vaccine mandate, the agency's acting General Counsel said workplace rules, though not inherently discriminatory, must adhere to Title VII's religious accommodation protections. The case concerns vaccines, not AI, but it shows that the agency treats the duty as live. The agency also released a National Enforcement Plan on June 4, 2026, according to a law-firm publication; the plan itself was not reviewed.

What the Kentucky case does and does not settle

Durman's accommodation proves that a non-theistic, morally grounded objection to AI can persuade an employer under existing law. It does not bind any other employer or any court, and it was granted for an administrative role where AI use was recommended rather than required. A job in which AI is built into core tasks, or one in which an employer can document substantial increased costs, presents a harder case. That judgment is inference from the legal standard and law-firm commentary, not from decided outcomes.

The next signals will come from outside the press cycle. Federal and state court filings, EEOC charge data on AI-related religious claims, and disclosures from public employers such as universities would show whether Kentucky is an outlier or the start of a pattern. Until a court speaks, workers and employers are left with a familiar framework applied to an unfamiliar tool, and the answer to whether AI can be refused remains "sometimes, if the belief is sincere and the job allows it."

Frequently asked questions

Can an employer legally require employees to use AI?

Federal law contains no general right to refuse, according to the research reviewed, so employers can generally set such requirements. Protection arises only through specific accommodation laws, chiefly Title VII for religion and the ADA for disability. State laws and union contracts were not examined and may differ.

Do you have to believe in a god to get a religious accommodation?

No. The EEOC says religious beliefs include non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Social, political or economic philosophies and personal preferences do not count.

What standard must an employer meet to deny a religious accommodation?

Since the Supreme Court's unanimous 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer must show that granting the accommodation would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The earlier standard, more than a de minimis cost, was rejected. Employers must also consider alternative accommodations.

Has any court ruled on a religious objection to using AI at work?

According to two law-firm commentaries, no reported decision yet addresses the question, and claims remain rare. The Kentucky and Erin Maus outcomes were reported as employer decisions, not court rulings. That finding rests on those commentaries rather than a case-law database search.

Does the ADA let an employee opt out of AI tools?

The evidence is unclear. EEOC guidance from 2022 said waiving AI tools may be required in some situations, but it concerned AI that assesses job applicants and employees, and it was reportedly removed from the agency's website in January 2025, which is unverified. No source reviewed applies the ADA to a mandate to use generative AI.

Sources

1. You don't need to believe in a god to get a religious exemption from using AI at work , TechCrunch (2026-10-29)
2. You don't need to believe in a god to get a religious exemption from using AI at work (syndicated copy) , Yahoo News
3. You don't need to believe in a god to get a religious exemption from using AI at work (copy) , Jingletree
4. U. of Kentucky Employee Wins Religious Exemption from Mandatory AI Use , Breitbart (2026-10-31)
5. Religious Discrimination , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
6. Compliance Manual Section 12: Religious Discrimination (Directives Transmittal 915.003) , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2008-07-22)
7. Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
8. Religious Discrimination and Accommodation , U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Rights Center
9. EEOC press release on vaccine-mandate lawsuit against Silver Cross Hospital , U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2026-03-27)
10. Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. ___ (2023) , Justia (U.S. Supreme Court opinion and syllabus) (2023-06-29)
11. Groff v. DeJoy: Supreme Court Clarifies Employment Protections for Religious Workers , Congressional Research Service
12. Groff v. DeJoy , Harvard Law Review, vol. 137
13. U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Groff v. DeJoy Clarifies Heightened Standard for Evaluating Religious Accommodations , American Bar Association
14. Employers Should Prepare For Religious Objections To Workplace AI Use , Legal500
15. Religious Accommodations in 2026 , Haynes Boone, via Association of Corporate Counsel
16. Coinbase CEO explains why he fired engineers who didn't try AI immediately , TechCrunch (2025-08-22)
17. Coinbase CEO fired engineers who refused to adopt AI tools , Digital Watch Observatory
18. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong AI coding assistants mandate , Fortune (2025-08-25)
19. EEOC Releases Guidance on Algorithms, AI, and Disability Discrimination in Hiring , Morgan Lewis
20. EEOC Guidance on Disability Discrimination and Artificial Intelligence Under the ADA , TechServe Alliance

This article was drafted with the help of AI and reviewed by Jaroha editors before publication.