Does AI really have religious impact on employees? Maybe. Recently, Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical called “Magnifica Humanitas” covered the dramatic impact of AI on workplaces, noting that AI is not "morally neutral" and urging employers to focus on the "protection of employment opportunities" and "the irreplaceable role of the individual" as they deploy high-tech tools. Note that Pope Leo does not ask whether technological progress should continue, but rather, he asks a deeper question: Progress for whom?
Other religious leaders have also weighed in on AI. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints noted late last year that AI “cannot replace the gift of divine inspiration or the individual work required to receive it,” indicating that AI can be used for tasks like research, editing, and translating but not to “replace the individual work and spiritual guidance required to prepare divinely inspired talks, lessons, prayers, or blessings.” A coalition of Jewish and Christian religious leaders, scholars and advocates — including several rabbis, and representatives from the National Association of Evangelicals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — issued a statement in 2025 declaring it is "incumbent" on companies to ensure AI remains "secure, safe, ethical, and under human control."
As AI has evolved, the religious beliefs of employees also have evolved. The rise of chatbots in the religious context is rising quickly. Employees can access them 24/7 depending on the denomination. If these chatbots are Large Language Model (LLM) based, the more freedom on the parameters of the responses, the more likely hallucination can occur. So, it should not surprise HR if an employee states that their religion doesn’t allow me to do X or Y, and when going through the interactive discussion the employee shows the chatbot response, HR should have them re-ask the question to just see if the responses are consistent. That’s separate and apart from understanding whether the answer provided is accurate in its interpretation.
According to a survey from evangelical research organization Lifeway Research, only about 10% of U.S. Protestant pastors say they’re regular users of AI, with another 32% experimenting with it. Another 18% are actively avoiding it, while 20% are ignoring it, according to the survey. Pastors expressed concern about errors in AI content, while 55% agreed with a statement that “God has always shared His Word through people, and AI isn’t a person.”
Sounds like lawsuits could be on the horizon. Under current law, sincerely held religious beliefs, even based on fallacy or hallucination, can be protected. For example, what if an AI bot provided to an employee that a LGBTQ employee is against their religious dogma and the employee refuses to work with the LGBTQ employee. What if the LGBTQ employee feels like they are being harassed for their sexual orientation. What reasonable accommodation is there? Could the employee relying on those religious beliefs be fired for harassment?
Federal law and Michigan law could diverge and have contradicting results. Rebecca Seguin Skrabucha, Member at Bodman PLC., explains that this is a problematic situation. Per Rebecca, “In general, an accommodation is not reasonable and poses an undue hardship if that accommodation requires the employer to violate a state or federal law. Regardless of current fluctuations in federal guidance and enforcement prioritization, Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, in addition to religion. The interactive process is a critical component of the accommodation analysis and facilitates an assessment as to whether, for example, a proposed religious accommodation creates an unlawful effect on another employee, and whether there exists an alternative accommodation that meets one employee’s religious needs without subjecting another employee to unlaw discrimination or harassment.”
Just as important, what if employees rely on Pope Leo’s statements to support their arguments for a religious exemption to using this technology. Management-side lawyer Devjani H. Mishra, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson PC who is a member of its accommodations group, said her clients are already encountering AI pushback tethered to someone's faith. "We are seeing requests from employees to somehow carve their work away from AI. This is not a theoretical thing," Mishra said. She then stated that there are workers "who are definitely couching their requests in religious terms."
The connection between AI and religious considerations is still an emerging issue, and it is not always clear whether a meaningful conflict exists. In many cases, employees may be able to avoid using AI through alternative methods that come with little or no direct cost. However, relying on those alternatives can sometimes slow response times or limit an employee’s ability to work efficiently. This creates a challenging balance for employers as they evaluate operational needs alongside potential accommodation requests. When these situations arise, it is important to consult legal counsel to help assess the specific circumstances and determine an appropriate course of action.
Source: Law360 5/27/26, Fast Company 5/20/26