Key Notes
- University of Kentucky research administrator David Durman obtained an accommodation from personal AI use, citing his sincerely held humanist beliefs.
- The September 25 approval still allows expectations that he attend meetings, cooperate with colleagues using AI and submit materials through relevant systems.
- The case concerns an individual workplace arrangement under Title VII, with the outcome depending on the employee’s beliefs, duties and the burden on the employer.
A University of Kentucky employee has secured a religious accommodation allowing him to complete his own work without personally using artificial intelligence. David Durman, a research administrator who identifies as a humanist, argued that outsourcing his thinking and judgment to AI conflicts with his beliefs about human dignity and personal responsibility.
The American Humanist Association, which helped him seek the accommodation, announced the outcome on October 26. It said the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request on September 25 after finding no undue burden on his department. Durman continues to perform his job duties, according to the association.
He Wanted to Keep Doing the Thinking Himself
Durman’s August 24 request letter describes an office beginning to integrate AI into staff workflows. It identifies Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes, suggested use of chatbots including ChatGPT and Claude, and internal language-model tools under development. He asked to be excused from personally using AI for transcription, note-taking and decision-making, including tools introduced later.
The letter connects that request to his daily responsibilities: reviewing grant guidance and application materials, checking compliance, and preparing submissions. Durman said he could fulfill those duties through manual processes and offered to take and share his own meeting notes. His proposal was therefore a way to continue doing the work while avoiding the technology he objected to.
In an interview with Religion News Service, which reported the case on October 26, Durman linked thinking through problems and considering other people’s needs to his development as a moral person. His objection concerns the act of delegating that responsibility, rather than simply whether a chatbot can produce a useful answer.
The Approval Covers Personal AI Use
The arrangement has practical limits. A September 25 approval letter quoted by Religion News Service says Durman may still have to participate in meetings where others use AI, cooperate with those colleagues or submit materials through relevant systems. The permission to complete his tasks without personal AI use does not require an AI-free workplace around him.
That distinction matters for institutions adopting shared tools. An employee can avoid generating meeting notes with a chatbot while still joining a meeting in which a colleague uses one. Durman’s accommodation addresses how he performs his own duties; it does not give him control over every technology choice made by the university or his co-workers.
Humanist Beliefs and the Workplace Rules
The request used Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance explains that religious protection can encompass sincerely held non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs. It also distinguishes those beliefs from personal preferences and social, political or economic philosophies. Strong opposition to AI alone does not settle whether a particular request qualifies.
The EEOC’s current fact sheet says employers must reasonably accommodate a qualifying conflict with a work requirement unless doing so creates undue hardship. It describes that burden as substantial in the context of the employer’s business, with the assessment depending on the facts. Durman’s approval is an individual workplace arrangement, rather than a court ruling establishing a general AI exemption.
The American Humanist Association’s exemptions page makes another useful distinction: humanists do not share a single position on AI’s ethics. The group says it supports individuals acting consistently with their own principles. Durman’s stance should not be read as a requirement that all humanists reject the technology.
Alongside the wider debate about AI’s employment risks, his case puts attention on the conditions of adoption inside an existing job. For employers, introducing an AI tool can involve questions about duties, shared workflows and individual beliefs as well as productivity. Here, the approved solution allowed the employee to keep doing the work himself.
Disclaimer: AIstify is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and insights on artificial intelligence, emerging technologies, automation, and related industries. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the AI, technology, software, and digital innovation sectors. These relationships do not influence AIstify’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2026 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
