AI and Religious Accommodation

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, enacted in 1964, prohibits employment discrimination based on a variety of factors, including religion. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with enforcement, has annually published data related to complaints associated with each of the protected characteristics. In 2025, the most recent statistics available, 3,710 charges were filed (4.2% of the total annual charges) related to religious discrimination. Although in total, the number is not high, it has increased year over year. Increases from 2018 to 2022 were largely based on requests for accommodation related to COVID religious beliefs and COVID vaccines. Legal pundits are predicting continuing increases in charges related to religious discrimination, primarily related to the use of AI in the workplace.

EEOC v. Consol Energy, heard in the 4th Circuit Court, paved the way for religious accommodation cases with large fines and penalties. In 2015, after winding its way through the courts, a federal court awarded an employee who resigned from his position with CONSOL (a West Virginia coal producer) $586,860 in lost wages, benefits, and compensatory damages after the company refused to accommodate his religious accommodation request, resulting in constructive discharge. In 2012, the company installed biometric hand scanners for timekeeping purposes. The plaintiff, a 35-year employee, requested religious accommodation that would exclude him from the company’s requirement that he use the system. His request was based on his sincere belief, as an Evangelical Christian, that the use of the device created the “Mark of the Beast” and the Antichrist as discussed in the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. The company refused his request for accommodation, despite allowing other employees to enter time manually into the system for reasons unrelated to religion. The employee resigned and filed a claim with the EEOC. The EEOC subsequently sued Consol on his behalf, and the federal jury found in favor of the plaintiff.

As indicated by the Consol Energy case, AI as a reason for requests for religious accommodation is not a new matter but has recently become a hot-button issue, particularly following the Pope’s recent encyclical in which he addressed the use of AI, urging regulation and governance of its use, as well as warning against the unchecked expansion that encroaches on human dignity and work. Similarly, other religious leaders, including ministers, rabbis, and imams, have issued opinions on the use of AI, often shaping employees’ religious beliefs surrounding the use of AI, both personally and in the workplace.

Employer Responsibilities

Historically, employers have been required to engage in a process to determine whether a request for religious accommodation can be granted. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy (2023), the bar for determining if religious accommodation caused undue hardship was relatively easy to meet. Groff v. DeJoy moved that bar significantly, with the EEOC emphasizing that an employer must face a substantial burden before it can show that the request for accommodation cannot be met.

Preparing for a discussion related to a request for religious accommodation, employers should engage with the employee following the same process as when holding a discussion related to a request for disability accommodation.

• Require the employee to submit their request in writing. MRA’s sample request form can be found here.
• Respond promptly to the request and schedule the discussion, advising the employee to come prepared to discuss their request and ideas for accommodation.
• Review the company policies related to religious accommodation.
• Review the job description for the employee requesting the accommodation.
• Keep in mind that the employee’s belief need not be tied to a recognized religion. The EEOC states that the law protects all aspects of religious observance and practice, including theistic and less common belief systems. The employer must provide reasonable accommodation for employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs. However, personal preferences, as well as social, political, or economic philosophies (such as passionate feelings about an issue), do not qualify as religious beliefs.
• Following the meeting, document your meeting with the employee. Provide a copy to the employee, advising them that if your documentation is inconsistent with their understanding, they should contact you immediately.
• Implement and monitor the accommodation.

Determining Undue Hardship

Unfortunately, there is no “bright line” to help determine if an accommodation will cause undue hardship to the employer. Several factors must be taken into consideration, including the employer's size and capabilities. Following the Groff v. DeJoy decision, the EEOC updated its guidance on undue hardship as follows:

"An undue hardship arises when the burden of granting an accommodation would be substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. An undue hardship could include increased costs; reduced productivity; or infringements on other employees’ job rights, such as accommodations that reasonably threaten to create a hostile work environment or create a substantial risk to workplace safety, health, or security. However, coworker objections based on hostility to religion or customer fears or prejudices are not an undue hardship. Whether an accommodation creates an undue hardship depends on the particular facts. For example, if wearing pants when working near a particular type of machine is necessary for safety reasons, an accommodation to allow an employee to wear a loose-fitting skirt for religious reasons while working near that machine may cause undue hardship. While an employer can refuse to provide a particular accommodation if it would pose an undue hardship, employers and employees should confer fully and promptly to explore other available accommodation options."

Employers should be prepared for the anticipated increase in religious accommodation requests related to AI. Whether the request relates to the employee’s belief that AI is dehumanizing, creates environmental and ethical concerns, or causes social harm and economic inequality, reviewing how the job was performed before AI may provide some answers.