Religious exemption from AI: a University of Kentucky employee, a humanist, was excused from using AI at work. What's known, and what Title VII says

A religious exemption from AI at work has gone to a humanist, in what Religion News Service's headline called a first. The American Humanist Association (AHA) said on October 26, 2026 that the University of Kentucky had agreed that David Durman, a research administrator there, does not have to personally use AI in his job, on the basis of his humanist beliefs. It was a workplace accommodation granted by the employer, not a court ruling. A Hacker News thread on it, posted October 28, had 465 points and 504 comments by October 29, part of a wider argument over AI and jobs that also runs through our look at whether AI makes people work longer hours.

This story is based on the AHA's October 26 announcement, Religion News Service's October 26 report (read in United Methodist Insight's credited republication), the EEOC's religious-discrimination guidance, the Supreme Court's opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, and reporting by FindLaw, Friendly Atheist and InfoWorld, checked October 29, 2026.

The short version

• Who: David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky, who describes himself as a humanist. Religion News Service adds that he is 45 and helps researchers with grant applications.
• What he got: an exemption from personally using AI at work. He still does all his duties, without AI, and still works alongside colleagues and platforms that use it, according to reports.
• How: an internal request to the university's Office of Equal Opportunity, approved on September 25, 2026, the AHA says. No lawsuit or EEOC charge has been reported.
• The law behind it: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless that causes undue hardship. EEOC guidance says nontheistic beliefs can count.
• Not yet published: the university's own statement or the terms of the accommodation.

Who is the Kentucky man who got a religious exemption from AI?

The AHA names him as David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky. In its announcement he says that using AI "violates my deeply held Humanist beliefs which demand I take personal responsibility for the morality of my actions," and that "I cannot, in good conscience, partake in the use and proliferation of this technology." The AHA says he cited harms to people's livelihoods, to the environment and to human creativity.

FindLaw's legal blog reported on October 27 that Durman said being required to use tools such as Microsoft's Copilot in Teams, ChatGPT and Claude "would conflict with his sincerely held beliefs." Religion News Service reported that he is 45 and that his job involves helping the university's researchers with grant applications. His department and how long he has worked there don't appear in the sources read for this story.

What does the exemption cover?

According to the AHA, Durman was excused from personally using AI in his job and continues to do all his duties without it. Religion News Service quoted the Office of Equal Opportunity's letter of September 25: "David is excused from personal use of AI to complete his tasks." RNS reported that he will still be required to attend meetings or cooperate with other staff using AI. Friendly Atheist, citing the AHA and Religion News Service, reported that the university agreed he would not be required to use AI as long as he completes his work, though he still works with colleagues who may use it. FindLaw reported that he must still attend meetings and submit materials through platforms that use AI.

In other words, the exemption is about his own use of AI tools, not about removing AI from his workplace.

Was it a court ruling or a voluntary accommodation?

A voluntary accommodation by the employer. The AHA gives this sequence:

Last verified: October 29, 2026

FindLaw described the matter as settled "without a single court filing." Because no court or agency decided anything, the case sets no legal precedent. It shows what one employer agreed to.

The AHA's staff attorney, Alexandria Huiskens, said Durman's beliefs "are sincerely held" and that nontheistic belief systems such as humanism "are entitled to the same religious protection under Title VII and the United States Constitution." The University of Kentucky is a public university. It hadn't published its own account of the decision by October 29, and Religion News Service's report includes no university comment.

Is this the first religious exemption from AI at work?

Religion News Service's headline calls it the first for a humanist, and its report attributes that to the AHA: "Officials at the American Humanist Association believe it's the first case of a humanist being granted an AI exemption." The AHA's own announcement doesn't make the claim. An earlier case drew attention in June 2026: InfoWorld, citing Business Insider, reported that Erin Maus, a software engineer and Unitarian Universalist, had been granted an exemption by her employer in May 2026 from using AI for coding, and now writes and reviews her code by hand. That case, not Durman's, is what searches for "software engineer religious exemption from AI" refer to. Friendly Atheist reported that Durman was partly inspired by Maus.

What does Title VII say about religious accommodation?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment discrimination based on religion. The EEOC's guidance says the law "requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices" unless that would cause undue hardship. The EEOC lists employers with 15 or more employees as covered.

The bar for undue hardship rose in 2023. In Groff v. DeJoy, decided unanimously on June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court considered a US Postal Service mail carrier who refused Sunday work. It held that an employer must show that an accommodation would result in "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business," rejecting the older reading that anything "more than a de minimis cost" was enough. The EEOC now puts it this way: "undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer's business."

Do non-religious beliefs like humanism count?

They can, under EEOC guidance. The EEOC's compliance manual on religious discrimination, issued January 15, 2021, says religious beliefs include "theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic" beliefs, described as "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong" that are "sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views." The EEOC's public guidance says Title VII protects people with "sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs," not only members of organized religions.

The same manual sets limits. It says "mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs," and that "social, political, or economic philosophies" are not protected religious beliefs on their own. Whether a particular objection to AI is a protected belief or a preference is decided case by case. In Durman's case, the employer accepted it; nothing has tested it in court. This article describes the law and the reported case; it isn't legal advice.

For how AI is already changing work in other settings, see our story on a Berkeley professor who stopped grading homework for correctness because of AI and the IMF's 40% exposure figure, explained.

What's confirmed, reported and uncertain

• Confirmed by two accounts (the AHA, a party to the case, and Religion News Service, which quoted the university's September 25 letter): Durman's name, job and employer; the September 25, 2026 approval; that he is excused from personal use of AI.
• From the AHA's announcement: the late-August request and mid-September meeting; his and Huiskens's quotes.
• Reported: that he still attends meetings and works with colleagues and platforms that use AI (Religion News Service, Friendly Atheist, FindLaw); that AHA officials believe it's the first such case for a humanist (Religion News Service); the "settled without a single court filing" description (FindLaw); the Maus case (InfoWorld, citing Business Insider).
• Uncertain: the university's own description of the accommodation and its exact terms; whether it is written down as a formal policy for others. The university hasn't published its own account.