Can employees refuse to use AI in the workplace?

In light of the increasing adoption of AI in the workplace, questions are beginning to arise as to whether employees may be entitled to object to its use on the basis that they hold a philosophical belief concerning its potential negative effects.

This raises an important question: can an employee's refusal to use AI in the workplace, based on a belief that it is causing harm to society and the environment, amount to a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA)?

Under section 10(2) of the EqA, a philosophical belief may qualify for protection where it is genuinely held, constitutes more than a mere opinion or viewpoint, concerns a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and is worthy of respect in a democratic society.

It is no secret that, whilst AI has brought about significant technological advances, concerns remain regarding its impact on both society and the environment. From a societal perspective, there is an argument to be made that the increasing use of AI has contributed to job displacement across a range of sectors and has, in some circumstances, reduced opportunities for individuals to develop and maintain professional skills. It is these broader concerns about the effect of AI on society and human development that are most likely to underpin a philosophical objection to its use.

From an environmental perspective, the substantial energy consumption required to develop, train and operate AI systems has prompted concerns about their long-term sustainability and their contribution to climate change.

It is widely known that belief in climate change is in fact a protected belief. In Grainger plc v Nicholson the Employment Appeal Tribunal accepted that a philosophical belief could be the view that mankind is heading towards a catastrophic climate change and therefore we are under a moral duty to lead our lives in a manner which mitigates and/or avoids this catastrophe for the benefit of future generations, and to persuade the others to do the same. Following this reasoning, it is arguable that individuals should be able to refuse to use AI in a workplace, on the basis that the use of it significantly contributes to climate change.

If AI-related beliefs are ultimately found to constitute a protected philosophical belief, a difficult tension may arise between an employee's protected rights, and an employer's ability to issue reasonable management instructions. Employees may object to the use of AI tools on the basis of their beliefs, despite employers having invested in and implemented such technology within the workplace.

Employees are facing increasing pressure to work at greater speed and efficiency as AI becomes more prevalent in the workplace. If employees are afforded the right to act in accordance with their belief, then where does an employer’s right to regulate the workplace fit in? The issue may not be therefore whether the employee will be afforded the protection of the belief, but instead where the boundary lies between an employee's right to act in accordance with that belief and an employer's legitimate interest in regulating its workforce and directing how work is performed.

It is conceivable that disputes concerning the use of AI could become the next major battleground in employment litigation, much like the biological sex and gender critical philosophical belief cases that have occupied tribunals in recent years. The litigation that followed the development of gender-critical belief protections demonstrate that the recognition of a protected belief rarely provides a definitive answer. Instead, it often gives rise to a series of fact-sensitive disputes.

Rather than a linear development of the law, the issue may become the subject of prolonged litigation, with the tribunals gradually defining the extent of legal protection. Whilst establishing that such a belief meets the legal threshold may prove challenging, the prospect of a tribunal being asked to determine the issue is increasingly likely. Both employers and employees will await a decision (or decisions) with interest.

If you need any advice or have any questions on how this might apply to you or your business, our Employment Team would be happy to assist. Please contact Eleanor Disney at edisney@leathesprior.co.uk.