You don’t need to believe in a god to get a religious exemption from using AI at work
David Durman, a nontheistic Humanist and University of Kentucky administrator, has received a workplace accommodation allowing him to abstain from using AI. He argues that relying on AI can weaken people’s capacity for independent moral judgement and critical thought, and says its effects on jobs, the environment and creativity conflict with his beliefs. His case highlights that workplace religious protections can apply to non-theistic convictions as well as conventional faiths.
Durman sought advice from the American Humanist Association after learning that a Unitarian Universalist software engineer had obtained a similar accommodation. The association says he is the first Humanist to secure one and wants others with related concerns to know they may seek protection. The university said it assessed his request individually and found an accommodation compatible with his essential job duties; it may review accommodations as roles and technology change.
In short
- A Humanist administrator won an accommodation to avoid workplace AI.
- His case was assessed individually by the University of Kentucky.
- The AHA says non-theistic beliefs may also qualify for protection.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
An accommodation can protect a worker’s deeply held ethical convictions while recognising that religious protections may extend to sincere non-theistic beliefs. If Durman can perform his essential duties without using AI, allowing him to abstain respects personal conscience and may prompt employers to consider the effects of new tools on judgement, creativity and work.
The case against
Employers also have a legitimate interest in setting workable, consistent expectations as AI becomes part of some roles. Accommodations should be assessed individually and remain compatible with essential duties; if technology or job responsibilities change, an exemption could create practical burdens or require review to ensure fair treatment of colleagues.
Explained simply
In the United States, federal workplace law requires employers to consider reasonable adjustments for employees whose religious beliefs conflict with parts of their job, provided the adjustment does not create significant difficulty for the employer. The law’s protections can cover sincere beliefs that do not involve belief in a god, as well as beliefs held by members of established religions.
David Durman is a University of Kentucky administrator who identifies as a Humanist. Humanism is a non-theistic outlook that often places emphasis on human welfare and reason; people who share it may hold different views. Durman says his concerns about AI’s effects on judgement, work, the environment and creativity are part of his convictions.
His case raises questions about how employers assess requests involving new workplace technology and beliefs outside traditional religious faiths. Any accommodation depends on the employee’s role and the employer’s assessment of whether essential duties can still be done.