Humanist secures workplace accommodation to avoid AI

A University of Kentucky research administrator has received an accommodation allowing him to avoid personally using AI at work, based on his Humanist beliefs. The university approved David Durman’s request on September 25, after reviewing whether it would burden his department. No court issued a ruling, and the decision does not create an automatic exemption for other workers. The case highlights how existing workplace religious-accommodation rules may apply to objections to AI.

Durman sought the accommodation with help from the American Humanist Association (AHA), which says he submitted his request in late August. He argued that using generative AI conflicted with his Humanist commitment to human well-being, independent reasoning and responsibility. The AHA says the university approved his request after meeting with him in mid-September.

The approval means Durman can continue his job duties without personally using AI. It does not mean his employer banned AI or agreed that all uses of the technology violate Humanist beliefs. The University of Kentucky told TechCrunch that it reviews each accommodation request individually, considering the employee’s duties and circumstances.

Durman said he wanted an arrangement that reflected his own convictions, not a rule for colleagues. In a statement to the AHA, he said: “I sought out workplace accommodations because using AI violates my deeply held Humanist beliefs which demand I take personal responsibility for the morality of my actions.” — David Durman, University of Kentucky research administrator.

The case concerns Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars religious discrimination in covered workplaces. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says protection covers traditional religions and sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs. An employee may ask an employer for a reasonable workplace adjustment based on those beliefs.

That rule does not guarantee every request will be granted. The EEOC says an employer may deny an accommodation if it would create a substantial burden in the context of the business. Relevant factors include the accommodation’s practical impact, the employer’s size and operating costs.

Durman’s employer concluded that his arrangement did not create an undue burden on his department, according to the AHA. The university also said the accommodation allows him to keep performing the essential functions of his role. It can review the arrangement if technology or job duties change, the university spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Humanism is a non-theistic worldview that focuses on human welfare, reason and ethical responsibility. The AHA describes Humanism as a life-affirming ethical approach that does not depend on belief in gods or supernatural forces. Durman said he believes overreliance on AI could weaken human reasoning and harm creative work and employment.

The law does not require belief in a deity. EEOC guidance includes sincere ethical or moral beliefs, though each claim and requested adjustment is assessed individually. Durman’s approval is an employer action, not a court precedent or universal AI exemption.

Durman was not the first worker reported to have secured an AI-related accommodation. Business Insider reported in June that software engineer Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist, obtained permission to write and review code without AI assistance. The AHA described Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation, a narrower claim than being the first worker overall.

Durman’s job involves supporting researchers who apply for grants, and TechCrunch reported his role did not require AI use when the accommodation was granted. He sought the arrangement after colleagues and managers encouraged staff to try AI tools. The report said he wanted to address his concerns before a recommendation might become a workplace requirement.

The case shows accommodation decisions are individualized, not a blanket right to reject workplace technology. Employees explain their beliefs and request, while employers assess job duties and substantial business hardship. Each request turns on its facts.

Ultimately, the University of Kentucky approved one employee’s request based on his Humanist beliefs and workplace circumstances. The decision does not establish a blanket exemption from using AI or bind other employers. Workers and employers will need to handle future requests under existing accommodation rules. As AI use expands, more employers may face similar case-by-case discussions.