A University of Kentucky Employee Won a Religious Exemption From AI

The University of Kentucky granted a 45-year-old administrator a formal religious exemption from using AI at work on Sept. 25, one of the first such accommodations secured under a federal civil rights law as employers push staff to adopt the technology.

David Durman filed his request in August under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects religious views, including nontheistic ones. Attorney Alexandria Huiskens of the American Humanist Association helped him draft it. The university granted it after a meeting where both sides discussed the sincerity of his beliefs, concluding the accommodation posed no "undue hardship" on the institution.

The case shows a mechanism workers can use to resist AI mandates. It also shows the limits of that mechanism.

Why did Durman object to AI?

Durman has practiced Humanism for 30 years, a nontheist system he says centers human well-being and flourishing. As a teenager he read David Hume and the Stoics, and their ideas shaped his faith.

Humanism stresses moral responsibility for one's choices. Durman disables Gemini on his Google searches and turns off as many AI features as he can. At work, colleagues and leadership offered what he called "mounting suggestions" about AI tools and floated AI conventions.

He explained his objection to Fortune in plain terms:

"To me, the offloading of any decision-making capacity or ability to interpret the world around you—including what's true, what's not true, what's going on with the world—reduces your ability to act towards those goals," Durman said.

The university has no AI directive yet. Durman said he wanted to preempt "any work environment move towards an actual requirement."

What does Title VII actually require?

Title VII obliges employers to accommodate religious observance unless doing so imposes an undue hardship. The Supreme Court raised the bar for employers in its 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy: a company must show substantial costs to its business, not minor inconvenience.

Huiskens said the case rested on more than dislike of AI:

"When David reached out to us, I think we were both in agreement that we see AI as potentially displacing human judgment, reason, responsibility. A lot of Humanists don't realize that they can approach their employer with this kind of exemption or accommodation, so when David reached out, I was thrilled."

Durman said his win stops with him. "My exemption doesn't apply to other employees, and I'm not trying to affect other people's work," he said.

Can other workers copy this?

Not automatically. The Equal Employment Opportunity Office distinguishes sincerely held religious beliefs from personal preferences and from political or economic views. Huiskens said Durman's three decades of Humanist adherence and his personal habits of avoiding AI strengthened his case.

Whether another employee could win the same exemption depends on that person's beliefs and the impact on the employer's operations:

"That's kind of up to these larger corporations and or universities to comment on and make a determination on," Huiskens said. "Right now, we are just reacting to what we are seeing and making sure that our members and Humanists generally are protected."

How much pressure are workers under?

The backdrop is a workplace pulling hard toward AI. Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke has called AI use a baseline expectation. Amazon urged its software engineers to adopt the tools when useful.

The numbers show both adoption and anxiety rising together:

• 52% of U.S. employees used AI at work at least a few times a year as of May 2026, up from 21% in 2023, a Gallup poll found.
• 37% of workers worried about falling behind colleagues if they didn't use AI, an American Psychological Association survey found this year.
• 48% feared AI could make some or all of their job duties obsolete, the same APA survey found.

Durman is not the first to raise a moral objection. Pope Leo XIV warned in his May encyclical that relying on AI could erode human creativity and judgment, calling it "a valuable tool that requires vigilance." Durman read parts of the encyclical but says it did not drive his request. His model was Erin Maus, a software engineer and practicing Unitarian Universalist who secured a religious exemption from AI at her tech company in May.

As more companies move from suggestion to mandate, Title VII claims like Durman's offer a narrow but tested exit, and employers now carry the burden of proving why that exit should stay closed.