By Thorsten Meyer | October 30, 2026 | ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
Your employer rolls out an AI assistant. It takes the meeting notes, drafts the emails, summarizes the files. Most colleagues shrug. You feel something else: that using it would go against what you believe. Can you say no?
At the University of Kentucky, one employee asked exactly that, in writing, and got a yes. David Durman, a research administrator who helps researchers apply for grants, does not believe in a god. He is a Humanist. On September 25, 2026, the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved a religious accommodation for him: he is excused from personally using AI to do his work. The case became public this week through the American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch. Here is what was actually decided, why a nonbeliever can get a “religious” accommodation under US law, where the limits are, and what companies and employees should do now. This is an explainer, not legal advice.
Key takeaways
- An accommodation, not a court ruling. The university approved Durman’s request after a letter dated August 24 and a meeting in mid-September. There was no lawsuit, and the decision sets no legal precedent. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position” (TechCrunch, October 29).
- Narrow scope. He is excused from personal use of AI. According to the approval letter, as quoted by Religion News Service, he may still have to take part in meetings that use AI and submit materials through systems that use it. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change.
- “Religion” is broad in US job law. The EEOC counts “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views” as religious (29 C.F.R. § 1605.1). Belief in a god is not required. Political views and personal preferences are not covered.
- The limit is “undue hardship.” Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer that says no must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Coworkers’ dislike does not count, and the employer has to consider alternatives.
- Not the first case. In June, Business Insider reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, won a religious exemption from using AI in May. The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to get one. That is the group’s claim.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Apple Watch SE 3 GPS 44mm Smartwatch
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The short answer
Yes, in the United States you can ask, and sometimes the answer is yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers with 15 or more employees to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work rule, unless that would cause undue hardship (42 U.S.C. § 2000e). “Religion” in that law is wider than church, mosque or temple. It can include a nontheistic belief system like Humanism, if it plays the role in a person’s life that religion plays for a believer.
But an accommodation is not a veto. It is an adjustment of one rule for one person, weighed against what the job and the business need. Durman got one because, in his job, AI is not essential: he does the work by hand, and the university found no undue burden on his department. A worker whose job is built on AI tools could get a very different answer.
What actually happened in Kentucky
Here is the sequence, from the documents and the reporting.
- July 31, 2026: At a department meeting, Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. That is according to Durman’s own accommodation letter, which also mentions the “suggested use of commercial LLMs such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini” and internal AI tools in development.
- August 24: Durman sends a two-page letter to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), written with help from the American Humanist Association (AHA), a nonprofit for Humanists, atheists and other nontheists. He asks to be excused “from personally using AI or LLM tools, including automated transcription, note-taking, or decision-making systems,” for current tools and for any adopted later. He states that using AI “is not an essential function of my position” and offers to take and share his own meeting notes (letter, published by the AHA).
- Mid-September: Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens meet with OEO officials. “It was a very collegial meeting,” Huiskens told RNS.
- September 25: The OEO approves the request. According to the AHA, the office found that it posed “no undue burden on his department” (AHA press release, October 26).
- October 26 to 29: The AHA, RNS and then TechCrunch make the case public.
Two details matter. First, Durman was not yet required to use AI. TechCrunch reports that colleagues and leadership had recommended trying the tools, and that he asked early, in case the suggestion becomes a mandate. Second, his employer is all-in on AI. In a customer story, Microsoft says the university achieved a “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot, giving more than 70,000 students and employees access (Microsoft). That is Microsoft’s own description. So this was not a skeptical employer looking for an excuse. It was an AI-forward employer that still found room for one person to opt out.
What Durman believes, in his words: “I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting,” he said in the AHA’s statement, which also cites AI’s effects on jobs, the environment and human creativity. He told RNS that “offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.” Newsweek, citing his interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, reports that he draws a line between tools like autocorrect and generative AI, which can involve “the offloading of cognitive ability.” The AHA adds that Humanists “hold a range of views” on AI. His objection is his own, not a rule of Humanism.
Infographic 01 · University of Kentucky · 2026
One letter, one meeting, one narrow exemption.
A Humanist research administrator asked not to use AI himself. His employer, which rolled out Copilot campus-wide, said yes.
- 31 Jul 2026Copilot promoted for meeting notesAt a department meeting, per Durman’s letter. Chatbots suggested, internal AI tools in development.
- 24 AugTwo-page letter to the Office of Equal OpportunityRequest under Title VII, drafted with the American Humanist Association. “Using AI or LLM tools is not an essential function of my position.”
- Mid-SepOne meetingDurman and the AHA’s staff attorney meet university officials. “A very collegial meeting.”
- 25 SepApproved“No undue burden on his department,” per the AHA. No lawsuit, no court, no precedent.
- 26 to 29 OctMade publicAHA, Religion News Service, then TechCrunch.
Excused
- Personal use of AI or LLM tools to complete his own tasks
- AI note-taking: he takes and shares his own notes
Still expected
- Taking part in meetings that use AI
- Submitting materials through systems that use AI
- Same duties; colleagues keep using AI
- May be reviewed “as technology and job responsibilities evolve”
“David is excused from personal use of AI to complete his tasks.”University approval letter, as quoted by Religion News Service. The letter itself is not public.
Sources: Durman letter, 24 Aug 2026; AHA press release, 26 Oct 2026; RNS, 26 Oct 2026 (quotes the approval letter); TechCrunch, 29 Oct 2026 (university statement). Timeline and layout: Thorsten Meyer.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
What the accommodation covers, and what it doesn’t
Covered:
- He does not personally use AI or LLM tools to complete his own tasks.
- He takes his own meeting notes instead of relying on AI transcription, as he offered in his letter.
Not covered, per the approval letter quoted by RNS and the university’s statement:
- “David may still be expected to participate in such meetings or be required to submit materials through such sites. David is excused from personal use of AI to complete his tasks,” an OEO senior manager wrote.
- His colleagues keep using AI, and his duties stay the same.
- “As technology and job responsibilities evolve, accommodations may be reviewed to ensure they remain reasonable and workable,” the university’s spokesperson said.
I have not seen the approval letter itself. Its wording comes from RNS’s reporting; the university has not published it.
He is not the first: the software engineer who codes by hand
In June, Business Insider reported on Erin Maus, a 34-year-old software engineer at a large tech-entertainment company in North Carolina. BI does not name the employer. Maus is a Unitarian Universalist, a pluralistic faith. She asked for an accommodation in April, citing environmental and ethical objections to AI that conflict with her religious beliefs, after consulting an employment lawyer and the minister of her local congregation. She was granted it in mid-May, “according to an email seen by Business Insider.” “I’m writing my code and reviewing my code by hand, which seems crazy to say,” she told BI. She also said she finished a coding task as fast as a colleague who used AI on a nearly identical assignment. That is one anecdote, not a study. The Unitarian Universalist Association told BI it is still developing a policy on AI. TechCrunch and RNS report that her case inspired Durman’s request.
Maus’s case is the harder version of the question. Durman’s job barely touched AI. In software, AI assistants are moving to the center of the work: on GitHub, AI agents now start 4 in 10 pull requests, as we reported in AI Agents Now Start 4 in 10 Pull Requests on GitHub. The more a job is built around the tool, the harder an exemption gets.
Why a nonbeliever can get a “religious” accommodation
This is the part that surprises people. The answer has three layers.
1. The law’s definition is wide. Title VII says “religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” The EEOC, the federal agency that enforces the law, has long defined religious beliefs to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” That standard comes from two Supreme Court cases about conscientious objectors to military service, United States v. Seeger (1965) and Welsh v. United States (1970). The regulation adds that it does not matter whether any religious group holds the belief, or whether the person’s own group accepts it.
2. No god required. The EEOC’s compliance manual says: “Belief in God or gods is not necessary; nontheistic beliefs can also be religious,” as long as they occupy “a place parallel to that filled by . . . God” in the lives of traditionally religious people (EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12). The same law also protects people who have no religion at all. As early as 1961, the Supreme Court listed “Secular Humanism” among the religions in the US that do not teach belief in God, in a footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins, a case about a religious test for public office (Torcaso, 367 U.S. 488, footnote 11). Durman’s letter cites both the regulation and Torcaso.
3. But not every strong opinion counts. The same manual draws a line: “Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs protected by Title VII.” A view that overlaps with politics can still be protected if it is part of “a comprehensive religious belief system” and not an isolated teaching. Courts have applied this line. In a case the manual cites, Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center (3rd Circuit, 2017), an employee’s objection to a flu vaccine, based on the view that it “may do more harm than good,” was found not to be a religious belief.
What that means for AI, in my reading: “AI is overhyped,” “I’m afraid it will take my job” or “I don’t like the tool” are opinions or preferences. On their own, they are not grounds for a religious accommodation. A conviction that is part of a whole moral framework you live by, religious or not, can be. Douglas Laycock, an emeritus law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Texas, told RNS: “It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment. That’s a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate.”
Sincerity is the second check. According to the EEOC, sincerity is usually “generally presumed or easily established,” and employers “should ordinarily assume” a request is sincere. If an employer has an “objective basis” for doubt, it may ask for more information. Warning signs the EEOC lists include behavior “markedly inconsistent with the professed belief” and suspicious timing, though none of them is decisive on its own. Supporting information does not have to come from clergy. In his letter, Durman wrote that he has “adhered to Humanism since my teens.”
Where the limits are: undue hardship and the job itself
Even a sincere, protected belief does not win automatically. The employer can say no if the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
For decades, many courts read that bar as very low: anything “more than a de minimis cost.” On June 29, 2023, a unanimous Supreme Court clarified it in Groff v. DeJoy, the case of a postal worker who would not work on Sundays. An employer now has to show “that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” (opinion). The Court added two points that matter for AI mandates:
- Coworker grumbling is not hardship. Effects on colleagues count only if they go on to affect the business. “Bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation” cannot be a defense.
- Employers must look for a fix, not just judge one. Title VII requires an employer to “reasonably accommodate,” not merely to assess one proposed option. It has to consider others.
A note for anyone who reads the federal rules directly: the EEOC’s regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2 still contains the old “more than a de minimis cost” wording. The EEOC’s manual now carries a notice that Groff “supersedes any contrary information.”
What can an accommodation look like? The EEOC lists changes in job assignment, including “relieving the employee of the task,” and lateral transfers. Whether that is an undue hardship depends on “the nature or importance of the duty at issue, the nature of the employer’s business, the availability of others to perform the function” and the availability of other positions. Moving someone to a lower-paid job is a last resort.
Applied to AI, in my reading:
- Easy cases look like Durman’s: AI is optional or a convenience, the output can be produced another way, and nobody else has to pick up extra work.
- Hard cases are jobs where the AI tool is the work: an engineer whose team’s workflow, reviews and deadlines are built around AI agents, a role measured on AI-assisted throughput, or a regulated process that requires one specific system. There, an employer may be able to show substantial costs, or offer a different role instead.
- Fuzzy edges. AI is built into email, search, spell-check and video calls. A request to avoid “all AI” may be hard to grant, or even to define. Durman’s line, as reported, is generative AI and LLMs for his own tasks. Specific requests are easier to grant.
- Nothing is permanent. The university says it may review accommodations “as technology and job responsibilities evolve.” What works today can be revisited if the job changes.
As far as I can find, no court has ruled on a religious objection to workplace AI. Everything above is how existing rules would likely apply, not settled law.
Infographic 02 · US law · Title VII
Three questions decide whether you can say no.
Religion is defined broadly. The limit is not belief but the job: what the work needs, and what an exemption really costs.
Is it “religious” in the law’s sense?
Can count- Moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong, held “with the strength of traditional religious views”
- Nontheistic beliefs. No god required
- Beliefs no group shares, or one’s own group rejects
Does not count- Social, political or economic philosophies on their own
- Mere personal preferences
- My reading: “AI is overhyped”, “I fear for my job”
Is it sincerely held?
Default- “Generally presumed or easily established”
- Employers should ordinarily assume sincerity
- Support need not come from clergy
Can raise doubt- Behavior markedly inconsistent with the belief
- Suspicious timing
- Only with an objective basis; none decisive alone
Would it cause undue hardship?
Employer must show- “Substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business”
- That it considered other options, not just one
Not enough- A trivial cost (old “de minimis” test, replaced in 2023)
- Coworkers’ dislike or hostility to religion
Religious, sincere, and no undue hardship: the employer has to accommodate.Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees. No court has ruled on an AI objection yet.
Easier to grant my reading
- AI is optional or a convenience
- The result can be produced by hand
- Nobody else has to pick up extra work
- A narrow, specific request
Harder to grant my reading
- The AI tool is the work itself
- Team workflows and deadlines are built around it
- A regulated process requires one system
- “No AI, ever”, including spell-check and search
Sources: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1; EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12; Groff v. DeJoy (2023). Easy and hard cases: Thorsten Meyer, my reading, not legal advice.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Why employers should care: the last time a mandate met conscience
There is a recent example of what happens when one rule for everyone collides with religious objections at scale: COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The EEOC’s own statistics show the wave. Religion-based charges filed with the agency rose from 2,111 in fiscal year 2021 to 13,814 in fiscal 2022, a year the EEOC says saw “a significant increase in vaccine-related charges.” They fell to 4,341 in 2023, 3,640 in 2024 and 3,710 in fiscal 2025 (EEOC, Table E4f). Fiscal 2025 is still about 76% above 2021.
These figures cover all religion charges, not AI. Nobody publishes a count of AI-related requests. But the pattern is a warning, in my reading: when an employer imposes a new rule on everyone, accommodation requests arrive in waves, and organizations without a process improvise. Ashley Herd, an HR adviser and former McKinsey counsel, told Business Insider: “Playing priest, and telling employees their request isn’t legitimate, does not tend to bode well for companies.”
Infographic 03 · When a mandate meets conscience
The last workplace mandate brought a wave of requests.
Religion charges at the EEOC jumped more than sixfold in the vaccine year. AI mandates need a process before requests arrive.
Religion-based charges filed with the EEOC
All religion charges, not AI-specific. Fiscal years.
FY 2025 is about 76% above FY 2021. The EEOC notes “a significant increase in vaccine-related charges” in FY 2022.
Companies with an AI mandate
- Set an accommodation path: HR or the equal opportunity office, not the line manager alone
- Write down what is essential: the result or the tool?
- Train managers: no mockery, no debates about whose beliefs are real
- Talk, consider several options, document why
- No retaliation; usage dashboards must not punish an approved exemption
- Define “AI” in the policy; review when jobs change
Employees who object
- Check the reason: belief, or preference?
- Ask in writing, even though the law does not require it
- Be specific: which tools, which tasks, how the work still gets done
- Expect questions and limits: AI-assisted meetings may stay
- Keep copies and dates
- Denied or punished? EEOC charge within 180 days, or 300 where a state or local law applies
“Playing priest, and telling employees their request isn’t legitimate, does not tend to bode well for companies.”Ashley Herd, HR adviser, in Business Insider, June 2026
Sources: EEOC Table E4f, FY 1997 to FY 2025; EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12; EEOC time limits; Business Insider, 5 Jun 2026. Playbook: Thorsten Meyer, general information, not legal advice.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
What this means for companies
- Treat an AI mandate like any other work rule: give it an accommodation path. If you require AI use, decide now who receives requests (HR or the equal opportunity office, not the line manager alone) and how they are handled.
- Write down what is essential, and why. Is the essential function the result (a summary, a report, working code) or the tool? If the result is what matters, a manual route is often possible. If the tool itself is essential, document the business reason before a request arrives.
- Train managers. No mockery, no debates about whose beliefs are real, no “everyone else uses it.” Route the request, take notes, answer in writing. Under Groff, colleagues’ annoyance is not a defense.
- Have a real conversation. Ask what exactly conflicts, and with which tools. Consider several options: no AI for the person’s own tasks, manual meeting notes, a different assignment, a lateral move. Document why an option works or doesn’t.
- Ask about sincerity only with an objective reason. The EEOC warns that employers who demand “unnecessary or excessive corroborating evidence” risk being held liable.
- Do not retaliate. The EEOC’s position is that requesting a religious accommodation is protected activity. Not every court agrees (one federal appeals court, the 8th Circuit, has held otherwise), but retaliation is a risk no company should take. Make sure AI-usage dashboards do not penalize someone with an approved accommodation.
- Define “AI” in your policy. Separate generative AI assistants from embedded features like spam filters and spell-check. A clear scope makes requests specific and decisions consistent. State and local laws may add their own rules.
- Review when jobs change, not on a whim. The University of Kentucky’s approach, case by case with a review as roles evolve, is a reasonable template.
- Measure outcomes, not prompts. If performance reviews count AI usage, an accommodated employee is penalized by design. Amazon’s turn away from “tokenmaxxing” shows why outcome metrics are the better choice anyway (our analysis).
What this means for employees
This is general information, not legal advice. If you are in a dispute, talk to an employment lawyer or contact the EEOC.
- Be honest with yourself about the reason. A dislike of a tool, a fear for your job or a political view is real, but on its own it is not a religious belief under Title VII. A conviction rooted in a moral framework you actually live by, religious or not, can be.
- Ask in writing. The law does not require it: the EEOC says no “magic words” are needed and the request “need not be in writing.” But a short letter or email creates a record. Durman’s letter is a useful model for the structure: your role; the belief and how long you have held it; the specific conflict (which tools, in which tasks); the specific request, for example no personal use of generative AI for your own tasks; how the work still gets done; and that you will keep working as usual while the request is reviewed and are open to a conversation.
- Ask early, and ask narrowly. A request tied to specific tools and tasks is easier to grant than “no AI, ever.” Expect that systems with built-in AI, and colleagues who use AI, will stay part of your workday.
- Expect questions. Your employer may ask you to explain your belief. If it has an objective reason to doubt it, it may ask for supporting information, which does not have to come from clergy.
- Keep copies and dates. Your request, the response, and notes from meetings.
- Know the clock. If you believe you were denied unlawfully or punished for asking, the deadline to file a charge with the EEOC is generally 180 calendar days, extended to 300 days where a state or local agency enforces a similar law (EEOC).
- Weigh the career side, too. AI skills are becoming a standard expectation in many jobs. Cornerstone’s chief people officer, Carina Cortez, warned in the BI piece that people who dismiss AI, for any reason, could hurt their careers. An accommodation protects you from discrimination, not from changes in what a job requires.
For more on how AI is reshaping office and entry-level work, see Computer Science Enrollment Fell 12.4% This Fall and 60,000 Buyout Offers and a $95 Billion Stock Sale.
Outside the United States
The rules differ, and this article is about US law. Two short pointers:
- United Kingdom: the Equality Act 2010 protects “any religious or philosophical belief,” including “a lack of belief” (section 10). There is no general duty to accommodate religion like the one in Title VII. Instead, a work rule that puts people who share a belief at “a particular disadvantage” is indirect discrimination unless the employer can show it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” (section 19).
- European Union: Directive 2000/78/EC bans direct and indirect discrimination at work on grounds of “religion or belief.” Its explicit duty of “reasonable accommodation” (Article 5) covers people with disabilities, not religion. Each member state writes the directive into its own law.
As far as I can find, no case has tested a workplace AI objection under these rules either.
Belief, non-belief and the AI question
The debate is not limited to nonbelievers. In his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas of May 15, 2026, Pope Leo XIV warns that current approaches to technology “can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks” (Vatican, paragraph 150, quoting the Vatican note Antiqua et Nova of January 2025). Some readers took that as grounds for workplace objections. Michael Naughton, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, disagreed in Business Insider: “It’s probably going down the wrong alley to say this is a religious right, that ‘I don’t have to use it’.” His reading is that the pope asks whether AI advances or diminishes human agency.
For the law, that debate within a tradition does not settle anything. The EEOC is clear that “it is the applicant’s or employee’s own religious beliefs that are relevant,” not what most people of the same faith think. Believers and nonbelievers are treated the same way: the question is always one person’s sincere conviction, and one job’s real needs. The wider unease about AI in daily life shows up elsewhere too, from fans rejecting AI-made culture (What Fans Actually Reject About AI) to how work changes when intelligence is no longer scarce (Six Ideas From My Book Dots, Bots, and Math!).
Honest limits
- One administrative decision. It is not a court ruling and binds no one else. It shows that an accommodation was workable for this job at this employer.
- Most details come from the parties. The timeline and the “no undue burden” finding come from the AHA, an advocacy group that helped Durman, and from his own letter. The university confirmed that an accommodation was granted and that he keeps his essential functions, but has not published its decision.
- I have not seen the approval letter. Its wording on meetings and systems comes from RNS.
- “First Humanist” is the AHA’s claim. Others may have obtained similar accommodations without publicity.
- The Maus case rests on one outlet. Business Insider saw an email confirming the accommodation; her employer is not named.
- No dispute is pending, as far as the coverage I read reports. Neither case is in court or before the EEOC.
- The EEOC numbers are not about AI. They show the vaccine-era wave in religion charges. No AI-specific data exists.
- Public employer. The University of Kentucky is a public university, so constitutional protections for religious freedom also apply. Durman’s letter cites both Title VII and the Constitution; I focus on Title VII, which also covers private employers with 15 or more employees.
- My reading: the split into easy and hard cases, the comparison with the vaccine wave and the recommendations are my analysis of existing rules, not statements by any agency or court.
Verdict
You do not need to believe in a god to ask your employer to excuse you from AI. You need a sincere conviction that works like religion in your life, a specific request, and a job where the work still gets done. Employers that mandate AI need a process for the people who say no, because the law already has one.
Sources
- TechCrunch, Amanda Silberling, “You don’t need to believe in a god to get a religious exemption from using AI at work”, October 29, 2026
- American Humanist Association, “Humanist Secures Workplace Accommodations from Personal AI Use on the Basis of His Beliefs”, press release, October 26, 2026
- David Durman, “Request for Religious Accommodation Pursuant to Title VII”, letter to the University of Kentucky Office of Equal Opportunity, August 24, 2026 (published by the AHA)
- Religion News Service, Bob Smietana, “A Kentucky man becomes the first humanist granted religious exemption from AI”, October 26, 2026
- Newsweek, “AI at Work: Religious Exemption Granted to Kentucky Employee”, October 30, 2026 (cites The Chronicle of Higher Education)
- Business Insider, Sarah E. Needleman, “She won a religious exemption from using AI at work. The Pope’s remarks could fuel similar appeals.”, June 5, 2026
- Microsoft customer story, “University of Kentucky sparks campus-wide innovation with Microsoft 365 Copilot”
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, definitions (Title VII)
- 29 C.F.R. Part 1605, EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion
- EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12: Religious Discrimination (EEOC-CVG-2021-3, January 15, 2021, with Groff notice)
- EEOC, Fact Sheet: Religious Accommodations in the Workplace
- EEOC, Time Limits for Filing a Charge
- EEOC, Table E4f: Title VII Religion-Based Charge Receipts and Resolutions, FY 1997 to FY 2025
- Supreme Court of the United States, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174, decided June 29, 2023
- Supreme Court of the United States, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), via the Library of Congress
- UK Equality Act 2010, section 10 (religion or belief) and section 19 (indirect discrimination)
- Council Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment and occupation
- Pope Leo XIV, Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas, May 15, 2026
