Pope Leo’s teachings on AI spark a unique modern legal debate
New papal teachings focused on AI raise legal questions regarding religious accommodations in the workplace.
Legal experts say Pope Leo’s recent comments about the need to promote the spread of artificial intelligence could have implications for workers.
On May 25, the Catholic Church issued Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, the Pope’s highest teaching to the 1.4 billion Catholic Church members. What is the main theme of this approximately 43,000 word text? artificial intelligence. James Paul, a labor and employment litigator at law firm Ogletree Deakins, also told USA TODAY that he is “bracing” for a flood of AI-related religious consideration lawsuits because of the comments.
“What we need is more active political engagement that can slow things down when everything is accelerating,” Leo wrote about AI in a piece titled “Magnifica Humanitas.”
Pope Leo’s statement is one of many discussions taking place in religious circles about the impact of AI and how parishioners should or should not engage with the rapidly growing technology. While some sects have taken a stricter stance on AI, no sect is monolithic in its approach.
Paul, who is based in Florida, said he has seen five to 10 religious sensitivity cases a week since 2020, with about one recently involving AI. He expects the numbers to “mushroom.”
Can employees request religious accommodations for AI?
In short, yes, but there are nuances.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees who sincerely hold religious beliefs, practices, or observances that conflict with work requirements. Common examples of religious accommodations include rescheduling religious observations and allowing religious attire in the workplace.
Integrity is necessary for a successful religious accommodation request, Paul told USA TODAY.
To demonstrate good faith, employees must submit requests to their employers, explain discrepancies, discuss practical accommodations, and maintain consistent practices with integrity.
Paul said common religious conflicts he has encountered are the environmental impact of AI (discussed as a negative impact on the world as a whole) and the dehumanization of the workforce and the lack of dignity towards fellow human beings. Paul said the latter is not inherently religious, but employees could argue that replacing them with AI would cause “social harm.”
Claiming religious accommodations for AI may be harder than you think
While it is possible to apply for religious accommodations to avoid using AI, Paul said it may be difficult to prove good faith, especially if your conflict is related to AI’s impact on the environment.
“People draw the line at certain things when they’re using…wait a minute, cars, smartphones, computers, all the electricity these days that are probably using some kind of AI technology that can potentially impact the environment,” Paul said. “Employees have to show that they really believe in this and that they abide by the rules set forth in their daily lives, which is quite difficult.”
Paul said employers can ask employees who request AI-related religious accommodations to outline how they will use the technology outside of work;
Additionally, Paul said that most jobs currently do not “absolutely require” employees to use AI. Rather, AI is a recommended tool for efficiency.
“One of the easy exits to this from an employer’s perspective is, ‘If you don’t feel comfortable or don’t want to use this, you don’t have to use this. We’re offering this to you to make your life easier, more efficient, or to make your job better, but if you choose not to use it, please complete your work as you wish without this useful tool,'” Paul said.
Employees successfully apply for religious accommodations to technology
Connecting technology to religious accommodation may be difficult, but it is already being done.
In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of a West Virginia official who claimed he was marked with a red-light biometric hand scanner and linked to the Antichrist.
In the landmark case EEOC v. Consol Energy, the court ruled in favor of the employee, recognizing that an employer cannot debate the theological accuracy of an employee’s beliefs. The employer previously used a separate time clock system and could have used this to suit the employee’s wishes. In the end, the employee resigned before the lawsuit was over.
Increased federal protection
In 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing laws that make workplace discrimination illegal, launched an initiative to ensure that the use of AI complies with federal civil rights laws.
The ongoing effort aims to begin hearing sessions with stakeholders on AI, gather information on the adoption and impact of employment-related technologies, identify “promising practices,” and issue technical assistance to provide guidance on AI in the workplace, an EEOC news release outlines.
Although not currently in place, Whitney Barsh, professor and executive director of Emory University’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion, argues that the conscience-based model used in the healthcare industry could be an effective way to close the gap when it comes to AI-related discrimination in the tech industry.
Separate from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conscience-based care model allows health care providers to opt out of certain services, such as abortion and assisted suicide, without penalty if they violate their moral or religious beliefs.
In a recently published academic paper, Barsh said this model could be beneficial for the use of AI because it offers more protections than civil rights laws, may result in disclosures that benefit the public, and may promote transparency.
“The lack of comprehensive regulation highlights the need for employee protections that, at least in some cases, may serve to regulate AI development from within and shed light on how the public can make sense of the technology,” Barsh wrote.
Contributed by: Reuters
Greta Cross is USA TODAY’s national trends reporter. Story ideas? Email her at gcross@usatoday.com.
