A University of Kentucky administrator has won a religious exemption from using AI at work, and he doesn’t believe in a god. TechCrunch AI reports that David Durman, a nontheistic Humanist, is the first Humanist to get workplace accommodations that let him stay away from AI tools. This shows that “religious” objections to AI aren’t limited to traditional faiths. That could matter a lot as employers move from encouraging AI use to requiring it.
⚡ Key Takeaways
- What happened: Durman worked with the American Humanist Association (AHA) and got a formal accommodation that excuses him from using AI in his job.
- Why it’s notable: His belief system is secular. Humanism focuses on human well-being and doesn’t depend on a supernatural power.
- Precedent: He followed Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who got similar protections earlier.
- Employer stance: The university approved the request but says it may review it “as technology and job responsibilities evolve.”
- Who should pay attention: HR leaders, legal teams, and anyone rolling out mandatory AI policies.
🧭 Why Durman Asked
Durman supports researchers applying for grants. Right now nobody requires him to use AI. Colleagues and leadership have suggested trying the tools, though, and he wanted protection in place before a suggestion becomes a mandate.
His objection is ethical. “The way we become moral actors for ourselves and for others is through the active application of our minds, and the diminishing of that [through AI use] is going to necessarily have a negative impact on our ability to do so,” he told TechCrunch.
In a statement published by the AHA, he made a broader case. He said AI “is interfering with people’s ability to earn a living,” that its environmental costs “spell disaster,” and that its “supplanting and theft of human creativity” threatens art and literature.
⚖️ The Legal Angle
The article doesn’t spell out the legal mechanics, but some context helps. In the US, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so causes undue hardship. EEOC guidance has long read “religion” broadly enough to cover moral and ethical beliefs held as strongly as traditional religious views. That’s the gap Humanists can step through.
The AHA wants nontheists to know this. “Concern about AI and human dignity can run through several different faiths and traditions, whether that’s Catholic teachings, or Universalism, or Humanism,” AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens told TechCrunch. Nontheists, she said, “are also protected by the law at work.”
🔍 Why It Matters
What stands out here is the timing. Religious leaders are already weighing in. Pope Leo XIV has called AI a threat to human dignity. Now there’s a documented route for secular objectors as well. Put those together and the pool of employees who could plausibly ask for an AI exemption gets a lot bigger.
The hard question is the job itself. Durman’s role doesn’t depend on AI, so the accommodation was easy to grant. The university said it determined that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.”
Maus’ case is the more interesting test. TechCrunch notes it has become rare for software engineers to write code without AI help. As AI becomes part of the core work, employers will have a stronger argument that an exemption creates real hardship.
📋 What Employers Should Do Now
- Audit AI mandates. Know which roles actually require AI and which just encourage it.
- Prepare an accommodation process. Handle requests one by one, the way Kentucky did, rather than with blanket rules.
- Expect non-traditional claims. Belief-based objections can come from secular frameworks too.
- Build in review points. Kentucky’s “may be reviewed” wording is a sensible model as roles change.
🔮 What Comes Next
Durman says he isn’t trying to recruit anyone. “For me, this was about me and my convictions,” he said. Still, he hopes people with similar concerns “feel encouraged to pursue some kind of resolution.”
Expect more cases like his. As AI moves from optional to expected at work, the fight over who can opt out, and on what grounds, is just starting. Full details are available in the original TechCrunch AI report.