Can an Employee Request Exemptions From Using AI?

A North Carolinian Unitarian Universalist software engineer, Erin Maus, asserted that AI use conflicted with her religious and ethical beliefs, citing environmental and moral concerns. After seeking help from an employment lawyer and her minister, she petitioned her employer for accommodation.  

The result?  She secured an exemption from her employer and is now permitted to write and review all her code by hand.  

The implications of this case raise questions for employers, who will now have to balance emerging expectations around AI usage alongside religious accommodations, as religious leaders continue to raise concerns about AI’s impact on human dignity and morality. 

This post will break down what you need to know and how to navigate AI exemption requests in compliance with Title VII.  

The Tension Between AI Adoption and Employee Rights  

Employers are integrating AI quickly, often before their policies can accommodate the legal complexity. While leaders are excited by the efficiency gains and the ability to scale through AI implementation in their organizations, it also creates friction for workers worried about their privacy, algorithmic bias, and conflicts with religious beliefs.  

As it currently stands, there is no formal federal law specific to AI in the workplace. That means that employers may change job requirements and introduce technology at their discretion. This includes requiring employees to adopt and use AI tools if they comply with labor laws, data privacy, and anti-discrimination statutes.

Where Title VII comes in  

Religious accommodation in the workplace is governed primarily by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The statute applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires them to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. 

What surprises many employers is how broadly Title VII defines religion. The statute and the EEOC’s interpretive guidance extend protection not only to traditional organized faiths but also to individualized, nontraditional, and newly adopted moral or ethical belief systems, provided they are held with the force of religion. An employee does not need a denomination, a doctrine, or a formal religious community to qualify, as long as they can account for a sincerely held belief.  

That standard has direct implications for AI-related objections. Employees citing concerns about AI’s impact on human dignity, its role in displacing workers, or its environmental footprint (if they frame those concerns as religious rather than merely philosophical) may be entitled to the same legal protections as an employee requesting time off for a religious holiday. 

Why Requests Are Expected to Increase 

Several forces are converging to make AI accommodation requests more common. 

First, employers are moving from informal AI experimentation to formal AI mandates. As AI usage becomes a documented expectation (embedded in job descriptions, performance reviews, and technology policies), employees have a clearer target for objection. 

Second, religious leaders across traditions are raising moral and theological questions about artificial intelligence. Concerns about automation’s effect on human purpose, the concentration of technological power, and AI’s environmental impact have entered mainstream religious discourse. Employees who hear these concerns from their faith communities may feel a religious obligation to act on them in the workplace. 

Note for Colorado Employers: In Colorado specifically, the regulatory environment is creating a more AI-aware workforce. Colorado employers who adopt AI broadly may simultaneously be increasing their obligations under the AI Act and the likelihood of accommodation requests under Title VII. 

What the Interactive Process Requires 

When an employee submits a religious accommodation request related to AI use, the employer’s legal obligation under Title VII requires an interactive process: a good-faith dialogue aimed at identifying workable accommodations. It is also critical to understand that although an employer could previously deny a religious accommodation if it imposed “more than a de minimis cost (a very low bar), the Supreme Court recently changed that standard and now requires that an employer show that the accommodation would impose a “substantial increased cost in relation to the conduct of the employer’s business.” This is a much higher standard and makes it harder for employers to deny religious accommodation requests. 

Depending on the role, potential accommodations might include allowing the employee to use manual or alternative processes, redistributing AI-dependent tasks to other team members, modifying performance expectations that assume AI usage, or reassigning the employee to a role with less AI dependency. Not every option will be available in every situation. If an accommodation is deemed too burdensome (after conducting a real, evidence-based analysis), an employer must explore others. 

Where Liability Arises 

Failing to meaningfully engage with an accommodation request, or engaging in a way that is superficial or pre-decisional, creates exposure not only to failure-to-accommodate claims but also to discrimination and retaliation claims. Documenting the interactive process is the employer’s primary defense if the matter is later disputed. 

For Colorado employers, there is an additional opportunity for alignment here. The AI Act already requires documentation of impact assessments and disclosure processes for high-risk AI systems. HR and legal teams should ensure that accommodation records are maintained alongside AI Act compliance documentation, so the organization has a unified, coherent record of how it manages AI-related employment issues. 

Best Practices and What Employers Should Do Now 

The employers best positioned to navigate this issue are those who treat AI adoption as a compliance event and not just a technology decision. 

AI usage policies that mandate adoption without including language on accommodations are incomplete. Employers should update those policies now to reflect that requests for religious accommodation related to technology use will be received, reviewed, and processed in accordance with Title VII. That language signals good faith and creates a clear intake pathway. 

It also means training. Managers who receive an accommodation request related to AI use need to know what to do and what not to do. An offhand comment dismissing the request, or a performance action that closely follows the request, can transform a manageable compliance issue into litigation. 

Finally, Colorado employers implementing high-risk AI systems should build accommodation review into the rollout process itself. Disclosing AI use to employees, as required by the AI Act, is also an appropriate opportunity to communicate how employees may raise concerns and what the process will entail. 

Is Your AI Policy Ready for This?

Religious accommodation requests related to AI use are no longer hypothetical. If your organization is expanding AI adoption or is subject to Colorado’s AI Act, now is the time to review your policies, train your managers, and ensure your interactive process is documented and defensible, particularly in light of the new standard delivered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023). 

The AR Group helps Colorado employers navigate the intersection of emerging technology and employment law. Whether you need a policy audit, manager training, or guidance on a specific accommodation request, we bring the legal expertise and HR experience to help you get it right. 

FAQs  

Q: Does an employee really have a legal right to opt out of using AI tools? 

Possibly… and employers should not dismiss that possibility out of hand. Under Title VII, employees with sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with a workplace requirement are entitled to a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose a substantial increased cost on the employer. That framework applies to AI usage requirements just as it applies to scheduling, dress codes, or any other workplace policy. Whether a specific request is protected depends on the facts, but the legal framework is well-established. 

 

Q: What counts as a “religious” belief for Title VII purposes? 

More than most employers realize. Title VII’s definition extends beyond traditional organized religions to include individualized, nontraditional, and newly adopted moral or ethical belief systems, provided they are held with the force of religion. An employee does not need to belong to a formal faith community or cite a specific scripture. Objections rooted in concerns about human dignity, labor ethics, or environmental harm can qualify if they are genuinely held as religious convictions rather than purely secular or political preferences. 

Q: Can we ask the employee to prove their religious beliefs are real? 

Employers may conduct a limited inquiry into whether a belief is sincerely held. What they cannot do is question the validity, logic, or popularity of the belief itself. That means it is appropriate to ask an employee to explain the religious basis for their request. Telling them their belief doesn’t sound like a “real” religion — or that it seems more political than religious — is not. The line matters, and crossing it creates legal exposure. 

Q: What if we think the request is really just an attempt to avoid work the employee doesn’t want to do? 

Sincerity is a legitimate question, and employers are not required to accept every request at face value. If there are objective reasons to question whether a belief is genuinely held — for example, if the employee uses AI tools freely in other contexts or raised the objection only after a performance issue, then those facts are relevant to the sincerity analysis. Document your reasoning carefully. But be cautious about letting skepticism substitute for process. A flawed interactive process is a liability regardless of whether the underlying belief is sincere. 

What accommodations are we actually required to provide? 

Employers must provide a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the employee’s preferred accommodation. Options to explore include allowing manual or alternative processes, redistributing AI-dependent tasks, modifying performance expectations that assume AI usage, or reassigning the employee to a role with less AI dependency. An accommodation that imposes an undue hardship (i.e., a substantial increase in cost) on the business is not required, but the hardship analysis must be genuine and documented. Convenience is not hardship.