An administrative approval granted in September 2026 marks what the American Humanist Association calls an unprecedented workplace accommodation involving AI.
Thinking is the work. That is the argument David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky, made when he asked his employer to excuse him from personally using AI tools.
The university agreed. In September 2026, UK’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request, making Durman’s case what the American Humanist Association calls the first known case of its kind involving AI.
His Argument
Durman’s objection is not a general distaste for technology but a conviction rooted in humanist belief about what it means to act as a moral person.
His objection is grounded in humanist conviction. For Durman, the cognitive effort behind his work, the ethical reasoning, the judgment calls, and the way he engages with colleagues is itself the moral practice.
“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. He added that “offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.”
The Legal Framework
Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, and federal courts have recognized that protection extends to non-theistic belief systems.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs. Under the standard established in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer may deny accommodation only when it would impose a burden substantial in the overall context of the business.
The belief must carry genuine moral or religious weight, not merely reflect a preference or political objection. A general dislike of AI, or a preference for older workflows, does not clear the bar.
Scope of the Accommodation
The approval excuses Durman from personally operating AI tools but does not create an AI-free workplace.
Durman is excused from personally operating AI tools to complete his own tasks. The accommodation did not relieve him of his job duties or change his performance expectations.
He may still attend meetings where colleagues use AI and submit materials through AI-enabled systems when required. His colleagues’ ability to use AI is unaffected.
Why Humanism Qualifies
The American Humanist Association argues that humanists deserve workplace freedom of conscience on equal footing with members of other faith traditions.
Alexandria Huiskens, a staff attorney at the American Humanist Association, described humanism as a comprehensive way of life grounded in human dignity and inherent worth. She argued that humanists deserve the same workplace freedom of conscience that members of other faith traditions already receive under the law.
The AHA assisted Durman with his request and says the approval is the first known case of its kind.
What This Approval Does Not Do
Because the University of Kentucky acted administratively rather than through litigation, the decision sets no binding legal precedent.
The university made an administrative decision, not a court ruling. This approval creates no binding precedent and does not entitle every employee who objects to AI to an exemption.
Each request turns on the employee’s specific duties, the sincerity and religious character of the belief, and whether an alternative workflow would disrupt the employer’s operations. Where AI is optional, accommodation may be feasible; where it is embedded in a core process, the analysis becomes considerably harder.
The Broader Context
As AI adoption spreads across U.S. workplaces, Durman’s case surfaces a question that reaches beyond religion into professional identity and workplace autonomy.
Survey estimates of workplace AI use vary widely depending on methodology. Gallup reported in the third quarter of 2025 that 45% of U.S. employees used AI at work at least a few times a year, with 23% using it at least a few times a week. A separate KPMG 2025 American Worker Survey, drawing on a different population and definition, found nearly nine in ten workers using AI at least weekly. Both surveys indicate substantial and growing workplace exposure to AI-enabled tools.
Durman’s case raises a question that extends well beyond religion. Can employers require workers to delegate reasoning, writing, and judgment to automated systems when those activities are tied to personal ethics or professional identity?
