A University of Kentucky employee has secured an unusual religious exemption allowing him to avoid using ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot and other artificial intelligence (AI) tools at work after arguing that relying on machines conflicts with his humanist beliefs.
David Durman, a 45-year-old research administrator at the university, obtained the accommodation after raising concerns about the growing use of AI in the workplace.
Although he was encouraged to experiment with the technology, his job did not require him to use it. He sought the exemption in case those recommendations eventually became a workplace requirement.
The decision is notable because Durman identifies as a nontheistic humanist, whose worldview centres on human wellbeing and flourishing rather than belief in a god. Humanism places importance on human dignity, reason and personal responsibility.
Why He Believes Using AI Violates His Humanist Beliefs
Durman became concerned after the university encouraged employees to experiment with AI tools, including Microsoft Teams Copilot, Claude and ChatGPT.
He argued that relying on these systems could undermine the human thought and personal responsibility that he considers essential to developing moral judgement.
'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 Religion News Service (RNS).
'And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it's taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.'
Durman's role involves supporting university researchers with grant applications. He said he could perform his responsibilities without AI and that avoiding the technology would not affect his colleagues. His concern was that its use could eventually become compulsory, rather than that he was already being forced to use it.
In his formal request, Durman explained why he believed using AI would conflict with his principles.
'Substituting automated machine processing for human presence, authentic listening, and personal responsibility in my work directly conflicts with my obligation to uphold human dignity and flourishing as primary,' Durman wrote.
His objections also extend beyond the workplace. In a statement released by the American Humanist Association (AHA), Durman said he was concerned about AI's potential effects on people's livelihoods, the environment and human creativity, including art and literature.
Humanist Wins Exemption Under US Law
Durman was inspired in part by the case of Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who had secured a similar workplace exemption from using AI earlier in 2026. He subsequently approached the AHA for help with his own request.
The AHA helped Durman seek an accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would create an undue hardship.
The AHA argues that comprehensive non-theistic belief systems such as Humanism are entitled to the same workplace religious protections under Title VII as traditional religions. However, this does not mean every humanist or employee who objects to AI automatically qualifies for an exemption. Each request depends on the individual's beliefs and circumstances.
Douglas Laycock, an emeritus law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Texas, told RNS that the belief must be more than a general objection to a workplace policy.
'It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that's analogous to a religious commitment,' he said. 'That's a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate.'
Alexandria Huiskens, an AHA staff attorney, described the decision as a significant development for humanists seeking workplace protections.
'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,' she told RNS.
Durman submitted his request in late August and met with university officials alongside Huiskens in September. The University of Kentucky approved the accommodation on September 25 after determining that it would not place an undue burden on his department.
What His AI Exemption Actually Allows
The exemption does not prevent Durman from attending meetings or submitting materials through platforms that use AI. However, he is excused from personally using the technology to complete his tasks.
The university also stressed that the accommodation would not prevent him from carrying out his essential job responsibilities.
'In this case, the university determined that an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position,' university spokesperson Jay Blanton told TechCrunch.
Blanton added that accommodations could be reviewed as technology and job responsibilities evolve to ensure they remain reasonable and workable.
Durman said he was not seeking to dictate how other people should think or feel about AI. Instead, he hopes his experience encourages workers with similar concerns to pursue a resolution that respects their own convictions.
His case does not establish a blanket right for employees to refuse AI tools. However, as employers increasingly introduce the technology into workplace routines, it illustrates how individual religious accommodation requests could become part of the wider debate over AI adoption and employees' freedom of conscience.
