After Pope Leo XVI weighed in on AI, employers may see religious accommodation requests related to the technology

Pope Leo XIV weighed into the debate about AI in the workplace in his first encyclical released last week. The Chicago-born Bishop of Rome had some stern warnings about the rapid expansion of AI in the world of work and the risks it poses to humanity.

“Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed,” the pope said in his address. “The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity. Artificial intelligence now demands to be disarmed, freed from logics that turn it into an instrument of domination, exclusion, and death.”

Pope Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas warned against prioritizing optimization and efficiency at a cost to the value of human life and dignity. He cautioned against systems that reduce people to data and metrics, automating away human decisions, and prioritizing productivity over morality and the human community.

The pope did not suggest—in the encyclical nor in public remarks—that the technology is inherently amoral, but instead offered a theology-based perspective to suggest it could pose a dangerous threat to humanity if society or businesses use it to maximize profit at the expense of God’s creation.

“The ‘new ways’ of working are not necessarily better. For ‘while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work,’” the pope said in the missive.

Bring it home. The concerns raised by the Vicar of Christ mirror many of the moral and ethical debates already happening in workplaces all across the US, as employers and their HR teams navigate how employees experience and produce work with AI.

The roughly 40,0000-word encyclical, one legal expert told us, could introduce a new and potentially complicated dimension for HR leaders to navigate: religious and moral objections to workplace AI use. Some American employees—particularly Catholics, but not exclusively—may view the latest papal teachings as moral evidence against using AI, and pursue new legal avenues to limit its use at work, according to Jonathan Segal, employment attorney and Duane Morris partner.

Though, it’s not as if employees could not make an AI-related religious accommodation request prior to last week, Segal said, hearing it from the top Catholic might raise the profile of these objections.

“When he’s speaking, he’s speaking as the pontiff—as a religious figure—so he’s raising these human dignity issues as religious issues, theological issues,” Segal said. “I think it is inevitable that some employees will rely on this to say…I can’t use AI because it conflicts with a religious belief that I have.”

Under Title XII of the Civil Rights Act, employees do not need to belong to a specific religion or denomination or draw their sincerely held beliefs from religious doctrine for a belief to potentially qualify for these protections, he said.

Segal pointed to vaccine requirements as an example. The Catholic Church proclaimed in 2020 Covid-19 vaccines were morally acceptable, but Segal recalled “many individuals” (Catholic and otherwise) opposed the vaccine on moral grounds, even if the institutional church didn’t share that belief.

“I think this opens a door—or it’s a little bit of a road map—for employees to raise concerns,” Segal said. “What the courts have said—what the EEOC has most definitely said—is that, as the general proposition, we shouldn’t question the legitimacy [of] sincerely held religious beliefs.”

What’s HR to do? Though employers are generally required to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so creates an undue hardship on their business operations, outright objecting to AI use probably isn’t a magic wand for employees who morally oppose it, Segal said.

“Accommodating doesn’t mean accepting lower productivity standards,” he said. “If someone’s product is sloppier, if the productivity is lower, if they miss issues they shouldn’t be missing, they can’t say, ‘Well, that’s not my fault.’”

Religious accommodation cases have often focused on scheduling, prayer, and hair and clothing issues, but AI-related moral or religious objections could potentially emerge in similar ways—particularly as employers begin mandating AI as part of daily work.

“One of the things that I think is important…is that there be some interactive dialog with the employee about: does this mean you can’t use any AI or does it mean that you are having some flexibility with your beliefs,” Segal said, adding if AI is standard and required for the job, those roles may evolve into ones that someone with a religious objection to AI are not suited for.

The nuance is found in when AI tools aren’t mandated or designated as essential.

Segal told HR Brew that HR leaders should lead conversations with candor, offer alternatives as a “trial period to see how things work for the benefit of both parties,” evaluate how much AI is required of the role (if its essential to it or not), and look at other roles as an alternative wherein AI is recommended but not required.

“We’re in that place now with AI, I think all of us will eventually need to use it,” he said. “The only question is whether it becomes truly essential to the job.”