A software engineer in North Carolina coded entirely by hand for years without thinking twice about it. Then her employer mandated AI tools, and she filed a religious accommodation request to opt out. In mid-May 2026, her employer said yes.
Erin Maus, a 34-year-old Unitarian Universalist in North Carolina, submitted a formal accommodation request in April 2026, citing environmental and ethical objections to AI as conflicts with her religious beliefs. She works at an unspecified tech-entertainment company, writing and reviewing her code entirely by hand. Maus filed the necessary paperwork with the help of an employment lawyer and her church minister. Her employer granted the accommodation in mid-May.
The Maus case is the first well-documented instance of a worker using Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to opt out of an employer AI mandate. She codes entirely by hand and reports matching the speed of her AI-assisted colleagues, directly undermining the most common justification employers give for mandating AI adoption.
The case arrived alongside a significant development in the Catholic world. Pope Leo XIV signed his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, on May 15, 2026; the Vatican released it on May 25. The document addresses the social, moral, environmental, and economic effects of AI. COVID-era vaccine mandate litigation has already broadened religious accommodation standards under Title VII, and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy raised the legal bar employers must clear before they can deny such requests.
What Unitarian Universalists actually believe about AI
Unitarian Universalism is a pluralistic religion rooted in the inherent worth of every person. Maus framed her objections around that core tenet, arguing that AI’s environmental footprint and its ethical implications conflict with her faith’s values. The Unitarian Universalist Association has not taken a firm stance on AI use but is developing a policy, and has stated that it believes advances in technology must be guided by an ethical understanding of humanity.
Title VII protection rests on the individual’s sincerely held belief, not on whether their denomination has formally addressed the issue.
The environmental concerns Maus raised are concrete. Data centers draw substantial energy and water resources as AI scales, and AI Weekly has cited UN University research on associated e-waste. For someone whose faith places a premium on stewardship of the planet and respect for human life, those concerns form the basis of a religious objection, not merely a personal preference.
The law behind a religious exemption from AI at work
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee whose sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would create an undue hardship. The EEOC defines “religion” broadly: it covers traditional organized faiths, unconventional beliefs, and moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. Employers may assess whether a belief is sincerely held, but they may not evaluate its legitimacy, logic, or popularity.
A religious practice may be sincerely held even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual’s religion. That relatively low threshold is what makes AI objections legally viable for a broader range of workers than most employers realize.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Groff v. DeJoy unanimously, rejecting the previous “de minimis cost” test for undue hardship. To deny a religious accommodation, an employer must now show that granting it “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” For a software engineer who codes by hand at the same pace as her AI-using colleagues, meeting that burden would be very difficult.
Before Groff v. DeJoy, an employer could deny accommodation by pointing to minor inconvenience.
Why this is getting more common now
Workers filed more than 3,600 religion-based discrimination charges with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fiscal year 2024 — roughly 70% more than the 2,111 filed in fiscal year 2021. COVID-era vaccine mandate cases broadened religious accommodation standards under Title VII, lowering the bar for future claimants. Employees who successfully challenged vaccine mandates on religious grounds established that sincerely held beliefs do not need to be mainstream to qualify for legal protection.
Pope Leo XIV signed Magnifica Humanitas on May 15, 2026; the Holy See released it on May 25. The encyclical addresses human dignity, the dignity of work, social justice, and the ethical challenges posed by AI. Because the EEOC’s standard requires only sincere personal belief — not formal institutional backing — the encyclical gives Catholic employees a documented theological framework to reference if their accommodation request is challenged.
Workplace discrimination specialist John Meehan warned that companies “might have to promulgate some rules about this very quickly,” particularly following Groff v. DeJoy raising the threshold for denying accommodation requests.
How to request a religious exemption from AI at work
The process follows a three-step structure. First, a worker must articulate that their religious belief prohibits or conflicts with using AI. Second, that belief must be sincere — genuinely shaping how they live, not something adopted for convenience. Third, the accommodation must not place a substantial operational burden on the employer’s business.
Maus’s approach is instructive. She did not simply say she disliked AI. In April, she formally requested a religious accommodation, citing ethical objections including concerns about environmental impact and job losses. She filed all necessary paperwork with both an employment lawyer and her church minister, whose involvement helped corroborate the sincerity of her beliefs.
Sincerity is assessed, not assumed, but the bar for employers to disprove it is high. A coworker disagreeing with the belief, or a manager finding it unreasonable, carries no legal weight. What matters is whether the belief is real and meaningful to the person holding it.
Every US employer that has mandated AI adoption without a documented accommodation process is exposed to Title VII religious exemption requests.
What this means for you
Title VII offers more protection than most workers realize for genuine religious or deeply held moral objections to using AI at work. The standard for granting accommodation has become more favorable to employees since the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy. You do not need to belong to a formal religious institution, and your denomination does not need an official position on AI. Religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by few or even one individual; personal preferences alone, however, do not qualify.
Record your belief not as a one-time statement but as something consistent with how you already live and practice your faith. Consult an employment lawyer before submitting a formal request, and ask a minister, elder, or faith community leader to speak to the sincerity of your beliefs. Maus’s success came from treating the process as a formal workplace accommodation — not a casual objection.
Companies that have mandated AI tools across their workforce without a documented accommodation process face Title VII liability — exposure that grows with each new court precedent and each new religious document addressing what AI means for human dignity.
Disclaimer: Articles exploring faith and spirituality are intended to encourage reflection and understanding, not to define doctrine or assert factual certainty. Spiritual beliefs and experiences differ across individuals and traditions and exist alongside scientific and real-world perspectives. Readers are invited to approach these topics with openness, discernment, and respect for differing viewpoints.
AI Disclaimer: This article was created with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed by a human editor.
