David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky, has been granted a religious accommodation exempting him from using AI tools at work, after arguing that using the technology violates his humanist beliefs. The exemption, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was described by the AHA as the first of its kind at the organization and for humanism generally.
Durman told Religion News Service that using AI would mean outsourcing his thinking to tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot, undermining his ability to develop as a moral person. “The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” he said. “And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.”
The American Humanist Association assisted Durman with his request. AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens called it “the first of its kind at the AHA and for humanism generally to exempt those who see AI use as flying in the face of their freedom of conscience.” She added that humanism, which federal courts have ruled qualifies as a religion, is a comprehensive way of life built on inherent worth and dignity, and everyone should have room to exercise it at work the same as Christians or Muslims.
Durman is no longer personally required to use AI tools but is still expected to attend meetings, cooperate with colleagues who use AI, and submit materials to AI systems as needed. The request should not place an undue hardship on the employer’s business.
Many executives remain uncertain about AI’s return on investment. Durman said he hopes his story helps others who would rather not be forced to use the technology.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Sets a precedent for religious-based exemptions from AI mandates in workplaces.
- Raises questions about balancing technological adoption with workers' freedom of conscience.
- Could encourage similar requests from employees of other faiths or non-religious worldviews.
Background
The Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless they cause undue hardship. Federal courts have recognized humanism as a religion for legal purposes. As AI tools become more prevalent, conflicts between employer mandates and employee beliefs are emerging.
Key Perspectives
David Durman: believes using AI violates his humanist beliefs because it requires him to outsource his thinking, undermining his ability to be a moral actor.
American Humanist Association: says this exemption is a first for humanism and that all workers should have room to exercise their beliefs at work the same as religious workers.
What to Watch
- Whether the University of Kentucky or another employer challenges this exemption on “undue hardship” grounds.
- If other employees with similar humanist or religious beliefs seek accommodations.
- Potential legal tests as mandatory AI use becomes more widespread.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedA University of Kentucky employee was granted a religious exemption from mandatory AI use at work.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Man granted first-of-its-kind religious exemption against mandatory AI use at work. David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky (UK), has successfully argued that using AI violates his beliefs as a humanist and has received Title VII religious accommodation from university officials not to use the technology.”
- SupportedFederal courts have ruled that humanism qualifies as a religion.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “While humanism is often a non-religious philosophy or a worldview, federal courts have ruled that it qualifies as a religion.”
- SupportedDavid Durman is a research administrator at the University of Kentucky and received an accommodation exempting him from using AI after arguing that it violated his humanist beliefs.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky (UK), has successfully argued that using AI violates his beliefs as a humanist and has received Title VII religious accommodation from university officials not to use the technology.”
- SupportedDurman’s accommodation is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Because of this, the research administrator was granted a Title VII exemption under the Civil Rights Act of 1964”
- SupportedDurman told Religion News Service that using AI would mean outsourcing his thinking to tools such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “According to the Religion News Service (RNS), Durman believes in "the human part of life," which includes making his own decisions. However, he says that when the UK asked its employees to use AI, he felt that doing so would mean outsourcing his thinking to tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot”
- SupportedDurman said, “The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” and “And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.”Latest from Tom's Hardware: ““The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” Durman told RNS in an interview. “And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.””
- SupportedThe American Humanist Association assisted Durman, and its staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens described the exemption as the first of its kind at the AHA and for humanism generally.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “The American Humanist Association (AHA) assisted Durman with his request for the accommodation. “This is the first of its kind at the AHA and for humanism generally to exempt those who see AI use as flying in the face of their freedom of conscience,” AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens said to RNS.”
- SupportedHuiskens said humanism is a comprehensive way of life built on inherent worth and dignity, and that people should be able to exercise it at work as Christians or Muslims do.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “She also added, “For us, humanism is a comprehensive way of life. It’s built on inherent worth and dignity, and everyone should have room to exercise this comprehensive way of life at work the same way Christians do, or Muslims do.””
- SupportedDurman is not personally required to use AI tools but is still expected to attend meetings, cooperate with colleagues who use AI, and submit materials to AI tools when needed.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “So, even though Durman is no longer personally required to use AI tools for his tasks, he is still expected to attend meetings and cooperate with colleagues who use AI or to submit materials to AI tools, as needed.”
- SupportedThe request should not place an undue hardship on the employer’s business.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Aside from that, the law also states that the request should not place an “undue hardship on the employer’s business.””
- SupportedMany executives remain uncertain about AI’s return on investment.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “Even so, about half of all U.S. employees now use AI one way or another at work, even as many executives remain uncertain about AI’s return on investment.”
- SupportedDurman hopes his story will help others who would rather not be forced to use AI.Latest from Tom's Hardware: “But as for Durman, he says that the fact that Americans are already thinking about the impact of AI is a good thing, and that he hopes that his story would help others who’d rather not be forced to use the technology.”