AI and the Workplace: Navigating Religious Objections to Workplace Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the workplace, and a growing number of employers are implementing AI tools to increase efficiency and productivity and to automate tasks. At the same time, a wave of religious and moral concerns has emerged as workers contend with what AI means for environmental stewardship, social justice, and the future of work.
This issue has come to the forefront as Pope Leo XIV recently published his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. This encyclical warns that AI risks deepening inequality and defends the dignity of human labor, while cautioning that technological advancement should not be pursued at the expense of human dignity, moral responsibility, or the common good. Rather than rejecting AI outright, the encyclical calls for the technology to be developed and used responsibly and in service of the human person, urging that it remain a tool that supports, rather than displaces, human judgment and work. Consistent with that nuanced approach, the encyclical does not take the position that Catholics may never use AI tools.
Nevertheless, the work sparked widespread reaction and will likely add to the growing number of employees who question whether the use of AI tools conflicts with their faith or moral principles. As employers have continued to implement AI tools, and in some instances, mandate or track employees' AI use, employees have begun to request exemptions from AI use, citing faith-linked ethical and environmental concerns.
Employers who receive such requests should be prepared to evaluate these as requests for religious accommodation. Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance unless doing so would create an undue hardship. When it comes to evaluating religious accommodation requests, the sincerity threshold is low, and an employee does not have to prove that every member of the same faith, or every religious leader within that faith, agrees with the employee's view. Instead, what matters is the employee's own sincere belief, not whether that belief aligns with official doctrine. As such, even though Pope Leo XIV's encyclical does not go so far as to instruct Catholics to avoid the use of AI tools entirely, employers should be cautious about denying an employee's AI accommodation request by stating that the encyclical does not provide a religious basis for the request.
This does not mean every employee request for a religious accommodation based on an objection to using AI must be granted. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court clarified that an employer cannot deny a religious accommodation by asserting that it would impose more than a minimal or "de minimis" cost. Instead, an employer who denies a religious accommodation must show that granting it would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Specific and identifiable concerns—such as safety, security, measurable productivity loss, or concrete effects on customers or coworkers—matter more than generalized concerns that an accommodation would be inconvenient or inefficient.
In addition to concerns about religious accommodation requests for exemptions from using AI, employers should be mindful of labor law concerns related to the implementation of workplace AI. AI implementation has already become a bargaining topic for unions. Recently, SAG-AFTRA took the position that digital replica rights are a mandatory subject of bargaining and unions have negotiated contract language requiring bargaining over workplace AI implementation. Even outside the religious accommodation context, if employees work together to discuss and express concerns about the use or implementation of AI in the workplace, this conduct could implicate the National Labor Relations Act's protections for concerted activity. Employers with unionized workforces, or with employees acting in concert to raise AI concerns, should be mindful of labor law implications before disciplining employees or rolling out new AI requirements.
Finally, in this period of rapidly evolving technology, employers should take the time to review handbook policies and train managers on how to spot accommodation and concerted activity issues.
For more information on AI policies, religious accommodation, or collective bargaining obligations, please contact Thomas Dowling, Bernadette Sargeant, Stephanie Scheck, Luke VanFleteren, Sara Welch or the Stinson LLP contact with whom you regularly work.
