What Changed After Groff?
For years, many courts treated undue hardship in the context of religious accommodations as anything more than a minimal cost or burden. However, in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that approach. The Court held that, to establish undue burden in the context of a religious accommodation request under Title VII, “an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Id. at 470.
The analysis is fact-specific. It depends on the actual accommodation requested, the employee’s duties, the employer’s size, and the requested accommodation’s real-world effect on operations. Coworker impact does not automatically equal undue burden. It matters only if it affects the conduct of the business, such as workflow, service levels, safety, or meaningful cost. In addition, the Court cautioned that employers should consider alternative religious accommodations, not simply reject the employee’s preferred option and stop there.
What EEOC Guidance Tells Employers
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has made clear that a religious belief does not have to be conventional, shared by others, or tied to a formal denomination to qualify for a religious accommodation. The key questions are whether the belief is religious in nature and sincerely held. Employers may make a limited inquiry if they have an objective reason to question either point, but they should avoid judging the truth or validity of the belief itself.
The EEOC encourages a prompt, practical, interactive dialogue once the employer learns of a conflict between the employee’s religious beliefs or practices and a job requirement or workplace policy, practice, or procedure. Employers should gather the facts, understand the job requirements at issue, and explore whether an accommodation could be made without creating an undue burden. Administrative hassle alone usually is not enough. Likewise, ordinary administrative costs, voluntary shift swaps, and temporary workarounds often will not qualify as undue hardship standing alone, particularly not after Groff.
Additionally, employers should be mindful that, on June 4, 2026, the EEOC released its National Enforcement Plan. One of the items listed under the section for “Chair Priorities” (referring to the Chair of the Commission) is, “[p]rotecting workers’ religious liberty rights to receive religious accommodations and be free from religious discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation.” See Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, National Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025 – 2029, p. 6 (June 4, 2026).
In other words, the boundaries of Title VII’s religious accommodation requirements are not only primed for further court litigation, but they are also front and center for EEOC enforcement.
How an AI-Use Accommodation Request May Fit Into This Framework
An employee might say that using generative AI, algorithmic decision tools, or other automated systems conflicts with religious beliefs about authorship, truthfulness, spiritual integrity, moral complicity, or participation in machine-generated judgments. Whether an accommodation request is protected will depend on the facts.
First, the employer should assess whether the request is tied to a religious belief rather than a personal or political objection. Not every anti-AI concern is religious. But if the employee explains that the objection flows from a sincerely held religious belief, the employer should treat the request seriously.
Second, the employer should examine the connection between the religious belief and the job requirements. Is the employee asking not to use any AI at all? Only certain tools? Only for certain tasks? A narrow request may be easier to accommodate than a broad one.
Third, the employer should consider possible accommodations. Examples may include allowing the employee to perform the work manually, assigning non-AI alternatives, shifting limited AI-dependent tasks to others, narrowing the employee’s role in reviewing or approving AI outputs, or granting a temporary exception while the employer evaluates workflow options.
When an Employer May Still Deny the Request
A “no-AI” accommodation may create an undue burden if AI use is essential to the role, required by a client contract, embedded in a core business system, necessary for safety, needed to meet productivity or response-time standards, or impossible to separate from other job functions without meaningful disruption. Employers will be in a stronger position if they can point to concrete facts supporting an undue burden argument, such as lost output, increased staffing needs, customer service failures, quality risks, security concerns, compliance problems, or significant cost.
By contrast, employers should be cautious about relying on speculation. General statements that AI is “important” or “efficient,” that coworkers may resent picking up tasks, or that an exception would be inconvenient may not be enough after Groff. Courts are likely to be skeptical of unsupported assertions of burden and employers that fail to consider alternatives.
Practical Steps Employers Should Take Now
Employers do not need a special “AI religion” policy, but they should prepare for AI-related accommodation requests before one arrives.
- Review your employee handbook to ensure your reasonable accommodation policies are current.
- Update job descriptions so they cover technology-related job requirements.
- Train managers and human resources not to dismiss religion-based AI objections out of hand.
- Build an accommodations intake process that asks what AI tool is at issue, what task creates the religious conflict, and whether narrower alternatives exist.
- Identify which roles truly require AI use and why.
- Document business reasons for using AI, including cost, workflow, quality, safety, customer obligations, and compliance needs.
- Consider temporary or partial accommodations before denying a request outright.
Key Limits and Unresolved Issues
There are no appellate court decisions squarely addressing a religious accommodation request not to use workplace AI. That means employers are working by analogy from general Title VII accommodation principles rather than AI-specific precedent. Also, it remains unclear how courts will evaluate requests involving hybrid roles where AI is encouraged but not required. These open questions make careful documentation and individualized review especially important.