Can you be fired for using ChatGPT at work? A Russian lawyer explains

No special rule against AI

Using artificial intelligence at work is becoming normal in many companies. Yet not every employer is comfortable letting staff hand tasks to a chatbot. As iz.ru reported, a lawyer was asked what this means for workers in Russia.

The lawyer is Alexander Yuzhalin, who heads the legal practice at SuperJob. He told Izvestia on 10 November that simply turning to a neural network (an AI system that generates answers or text) is not a reason to dismiss someone.

His reasoning rests on the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. It has no separate ground for firing a person over AI use. Nor does the law contain a general ban on using neural networks in professional work.

Where a company can draw the line

That does not mean employers are powerless. According to Yuzhalin, a company may set its own limits on AI. The catch is that a ban has to be written down, either in the employment contract or in a local regulatory act, meaning an internal company document.

Once an employee has been shown those requirements, they are expected to follow them. In other words, the rule does not come from the national law. It comes from the paperwork between you and your employer.

This is why the same action can be harmless in one office and a violation in another. Two colleagues doing the same task with the same chatbot could be in very different positions, depending on what each company has put in writing.

From reprimand to dismissal

If a worker breaks a ban that the employer has properly set, it can be treated as a disciplinary offence. For a first, minor breach, the usual outcome is a remark or a reprimand.

Things get more serious on a second breach. If the worker repeats the violation while the earlier penalty is still in force, the employer may dismiss them for repeatedly failing to carry out their job duties.

So the path is gradual. The article describes a ladder: a lighter penalty first, then dismissal only if the person breaks the same kind of rule again while the earlier penalty still stands.

Why employers hesitate

The source names several reasons a company might not want staff using AI. One is the risk of mistakes in the output. Another is the leak of confidential information, which can happen when work material is typed into an outside tool. A third is the worry that employees will lean on AI instead of doing the work themselves.

These concerns explain why some bans exist. They also show what a sensible company policy should address: what is allowed, what kind of data must stay out, and what the company expects from people.

What employers should do first

Yuzhalin's advice to employers is to settle the rules in advance. A company should decide whether employees may use neural networks for work tasks at all, and what limits will apply if they may.

If management chooses a ban, it must be formally recorded in the contract or in an internal document. Staff then need to be introduced to the rules and sign to confirm it.

The signature matters. A ban nobody has seen is hard to enforce, while a ban that employees have signed for is something they are bound to follow.

A note on other countries

This account covers Russian law only. Rules differ by country and by company, and the source does not say how other places handle it. The practical lesson travels well, though: the answer usually depends on your contract and your employer's policy, not on a general rule about AI.