THE ESSENTIALS IN 30 SECONDS

  • In September, the University of Kentucky's Office of Equal Opportunity granted research administrator David Durman an exemption from personally using AI tools.
  • The request, made with help from the American Humanist Association, relied on Title VII, the US law requiring employers to accommodate religious beliefs unless that causes undue hardship.
  • Durman must still attend meetings and submit work through platforms that include AI; the matter was settled without any court filing.

As employers push staff to adopt AI assistants, a case at the University of Kentucky shows one route for workers who do not want to use them. A research administrator there, David Durman, has been granted a religious accommodation that exempts him from using AI tools in his job, according to reporting first published by Religion News Service on October 26 and summarised by FindLaw.

What was granted

Durman identifies as a humanist. He argued that relying on AI would lead him to hand off his own thinking and decision-making, which conflicts with the importance humanism places on human judgement and critical thinking. With the help of the American Humanist Association, he asked for an accommodation under Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act, which requires employers to adjust work requirements for an employee's religious beliefs unless doing so imposes undue hardship.

In September, the university's Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request. Durman no longer has to personally use tools such as Microsoft's Copilot in Teams, ChatGPT or Claude. The exemption is limited: he must still attend meetings and submit material through platforms that contain AI features. The case was resolved without any lawsuit. The American Humanist Association believes it is the first time a humanist has obtained such an exemption.

Why a non-theistic belief qualifies

US law does not limit religious protection to belief in a god. Sincerely held moral or ethical convictions can qualify, which is why a secular humanist could make the request. FindLaw notes that the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy raised the bar for employers, who must now show a substantial burden on their operations to refuse an accommodation. The university found no such hardship in this case.

A growing question for employers

This is not the only example. FindLaw reports that a Unitarian Universalist, Erin Maus, received a similar exemption in May 2026. Employment lawyers and HR publications have been warning companies that mandatory AI use may trigger more requests of this kind. Each one is assessed individually, so the Kentucky decision does not set a binding precedent, but it suggests that blanket requirements to use AI may need exceptions where a sincere belief is at stake.