Religious Exemptions from AI Use? A Look at the U.S. University Staff Case
機械翻訳 / Machine-translated
A
AI Friends
5日前・17分で読める
機械翻訳 / Machine-translated
@aifriends
AI Friends（https://aifriends.jp）のクロスポスト公式アカウント。AIツールの紹介・使い方・できることを、中学生でもわかるやさしい日本語で届けます。
Have you ever been told by your employer to use AI, but felt strongly resistant to the idea? In the United States, a case has emerged where that resistance was officially recognized as a religious reason. This article explains what happened, why it was accepted, and whether it has any relevance to workplaces in Japan.
David Dearman (age 45), a research administrator at the University of Kentucky — a staff member responsible for research funding and administrative affairs — applied for a religious exemption from using AI in his work and was granted it.
The story was reported by GIGAZINE, based on an article by Religion News Service dated October 26, 2026.
Dearman is a humanist — someone who values human reason and ethics over the divine. He explained that relying on AI means entrusting both thinking and decision-making to AI, which goes against his beliefs.
He further stated that the process of thinking things through thoroughly is essential to growing as a moral human being, and that delegating that to AI would diminish his capacity as a moral agent.
Dearman was supported by the American Humanist Association. Attorney Alexandria Hysken drafted a letter based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees.
A meeting with university officials followed. The discussions were described as very amicable, and the university promptly agreed to the accommodation, determining that it would not impose an undue hardship on the department.
The scope of the exemption is not a blanket release from all AI. What is exempted is the use of AI to complete one's own work assignments.
However, attending meetings and collaborating with colleagues who use AI may still be required. Submitting materials to AI-related platforms may also be asked of him.
The attorney noted that federal courts have recognized humanism as a religion, meaning humanists hold the same rights under federal law as members of other religious groups. The association views this as the first AI-use exemption granted to a humanist.
This is not, in fact, the first case of an AI-use exemption. Software engineer Erin Maus of North Carolina was reportedly granted a religious exemption from AI use by her employer in May 2026.
Maus is not Catholic but a Unitarian Universalist. According to an article in Computerworld, one of her stated grounds was a passage from Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas — an official letter from the Pope to the faithful — which calls for caution regarding AI.
Maus stated that she "writes her own code and reviews it manually."
Imagine an engineer working at a software company who is told by management that "everyone must use AI coding tools." That engineer declines on the basis of their beliefs and continues writing code by hand. That is precisely what Maus's way of working looks like.
The key is Title VII. When a sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a job requirement, employers must provide accommodation to the extent that it does not impose an "undue hardship."
According to HR Dive, faith-based objections do not need to be grounded in the doctrine of an organized religion — it is sufficient to verify that the individual sincerely holds the belief.
Courts and regulators are cautious about questioning the authenticity of someone's faith. Furthermore, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Groff v. DeJoy raised the bar for employers trying to prove "undue hardship."
So what kinds of objections might arise? HR Dive identifies the following types:
There are also instructive past examples. In 2012, a West Virginia coal miner was fired for raising a religious objection to a biometric hand scanner. After lengthy litigation, he was awarded more than $500,000 in damages.
Religious accommodation is nothing new to AI. Similar disputes have existed for years around vaccine mandates, Sunday work requirements, and the wearing of hijabs. AI is simply the newest issue to join that list.
Comparing them reveals some key differences:
HR Dive offers the following recommendations for companies:
Additionally, an article on Gizmodo Japan discussing the relationship between the papal encyclical and AI exemptions quoted an attorney as saying that "such claims are inevitable."
Japan does not have a law equivalent to Title VII that requires employers to make religious accommodations. Therefore, the same situation is unlikely to play out in exactly the same way in Japan. How such matters are handled in Japan was not confirmed in this research.
That said, the adoption of AI in the workplace is advancing. The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT), in collaboration with the OECD, conducted a corporate survey on the impact of AI adoption in the workplace on working styles. The survey covered 25,000 companies nationwide and ran from July 3 to October 20, 2026.
When a Japanese company decides that "all employees must use AI," there is a real possibility that some employees will refuse on the grounds of personal beliefs or values. At that point, will the company issue a blanket order, or will it open a dialogue? The American cases offer a starting point for reflection.
For example, imagine a company where the number of times an employee uses AI is factored into performance reviews. Employees who prefer not to use AI may find themselves at a disadvantage. Before that happens, it is important for companies to establish clear channels and rules in advance.
No. According to HR Dive, the key question is whether the person sincerely holds the belief. It is also a condition that the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.
In Dearman's case, the exemption is limited to using AI to complete his own work assignments. He may still be required to attend meetings and collaborate with colleagues who use AI.
The attorney stated that federal courts have recognized humanism as a religion, and therefore humanists hold the same rights as members of other religious groups under federal law.
Japan does not have a law equivalent to Title VII in the United States. How such matters are handled in Japan was not confirmed in this research. Please check the work rules of your workplace and any available internal consultation channels.
Take some time to revisit your own workplace's AI usage policies.
This article is a cross-post from AI Friends.
