Kentucky Humanist Wins First-of-Its-Kind Religious Exemption From AI at Work

A nontheistic humanist at the University of Kentucky has secured what is being described as a first-of-its-kind religious exemption from AI at work, a sign that objections to artificial intelligence are starting to meet employment law in new ways.

David Durman, an administrator who helps researchers apply for grants, told TechCrunch that he asked the American Humanist Association (AHA) how he could gain legal protection from being made to use AI on the job. According to the reporting, he is the first humanist to win a workplace accommodation of this kind, and one of the first people to speak publicly about seeking one.

Why a Humanist Sought a Religious Exemption From AI

Humanism does not rely on belief in a god, but Durman argues it is still a belief system. He describes it as a set of convictions about human well-being and flourishing, both individual and collective. In his view, people become moral actors through the active use of their minds, and leaning on AI weakens that capacity.

In a statement published by the AHA, he also pointed to broader worries: AI’s effect on people’s ability to earn a living, its environmental costs, and what he calls the theft of human creativity. Those concerns are common in wider public debate. Durman has framed them as part of a moral outlook rather than simply a preference.

A Precedent, and a Pre-Emptive Move

Durman said he was inspired by Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who reportedly secured similar protections. Her case is unusual, given how rare it has become for engineers to write code with no AI help. Durman’s situation is different. He has not been required to use AI, but some colleagues and leaders have encouraged staff to try the tools. He sought the accommodation now in case that encouragement hardens into a mandate.

The AHA’s staff attorney, Alexandria Huiskens, said the aim is to make clear that nontheists are covered by workplace religious protections too. She noted that unease about AI and human dignity runs through several traditions, and she cited Catholic teaching, Universalism and Humanism. Pope Leo XIV has publicly decried AI as a threat to human dignity.

What the University Says

University spokesperson Jay Blanton said the institution reviews religious accommodation requests individually, weighing the employee’s duties and circumstances. In this case, he said, the university concluded it could grant an accommodation while Durman continued to perform the essential functions of his job.

Blanton also added a caveat. As technology and job responsibilities change, accommodations may be revisited to make sure they stay “reasonable and workable.” That suggests a religious exemption from AI is not necessarily permanent, especially if a role’s core tasks come to depend on the tools.

One note on framing: a TechRadar headline calls this a civil rights ruling, but the TechCrunch account describes a university decision on an accommodation request, not a court judgment. The sources do not mention any litigation.

What It Signals for Other Workers

Durman says he is not trying to tell others what to think. He hopes people with similar concerns will pursue some form of resolution, even if not a formal religious exemption from AI. Whether his case becomes a template will depend on how employers handle later requests, particularly in jobs where AI use is already routine. For now, it shows that a belief system without a deity can be the basis for an accommodation, at least at one public university.

Explore more on this topic with Vexel Search.