The Mark of the Bot: When Employees Raise Religious Objections to Workplace AI Usage

Quick Hits

• A number of organized religions have stepped into the public debate over AI to provide their religious perspective.
• Some employers are receiving accommodation requests from workers who have religious objections to using AI.
• Federal and state laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious beliefs, unless it would impose an undue hardship.

In recent years, many business leaders have implemented new work protocols and performance metrics that require workers to use AI tools for certain job functions. At the same time, religious objections to workplace requirements or procedures are on the rise. One stark example involved a nearly $600,000 jury verdict upheld on appeal in favor of an evangelical Christian employee who objected to his employer’s biometric hand scanner on the grounds that it would imprint him with the “Mark of the Beast”—a symbol from the Book of Revelation associated with followers of the Antichrist—after the employer refused to offer him the same keypad alternative it had already made available to employees with hand injuries.

Meanwhile, leaders and scholars in the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the World Council of Churches, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Islamic organizations, Jewish organizations, and Hindu organizations have released statements or guidance regarding AI and ethics. Most of them grapple with and provide philosophical suggestions and options regarding the ethical use of AI and preventing—or at least minimizing—harm to individuals, communities, human connections, and the environment.

Additionally, some employees may form and hold religious beliefs about AI based on statements they heard directly from their priest, pastor, rabbi, or imam. As a result, workers might request to be exempt from AI tasks, to use traditional or manual methods, or to excuse their abstinence from AI usage in their job performance metrics. That could affect the workload that coworkers would have to handle.

Legal Considerations

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. There are, essentially, three steps in this analysis:

• Has the employee demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief or practice?
• Does that belief or practice actually conflict with a workplace rule, requirement, or prohibition?
• Can the conflict be resolved by providing some type of accommodation or compromise for the employee so that the employee’s religious belief or practice can productively co-exist with the job requirements without imposing an undue hardship on the employer?

In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court of the United States held that employers must establish that an accommodation would result in a substantial burden, meaning a significant difficulty or expense, to deny a religious accommodation request. Most states have antidiscrimination laws similar to the federal law.

Courts will use a case-by-case assessment of the job duties, business size, workplace environment, and the specific accommodation request to determine whether there is an undue hardship. For example, a business may show an undue hardship if an accommodation compromises workplace safety, severely disrupts efficiency and productivity, or infringes on a coworker’s legal rights. The fact that a coworker, client, or customer dislikes or disagrees with an accommodation is not enough to demonstrate an undue hardship.

Next Steps

Employers may wish to review their religious accommodation policies, job descriptions, performance evaluation processes, and other practices to assess whether any changes are needed, given the increased use of AI in most workplaces. Applying  accommodation decisions fairly and consistently may help reduce the risk of religious discrimination lawsuits.

Employers may wish to carefully document their legitimate business reasons for denying or revoking a religious accommodation. Questioning whether an employee’s religious beliefs are sincerely held may create unnecessary liability for employers.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, and Technology blogs as additional information becomes available.

Matthew P. Gizzo is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ New York and Dallas offices.

James M. Paul is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Tampa and St. Louis offices.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts