Nonbeliever Wins Religious Exemption From Workplace AI

A University of Kentucky administrator has become the first Humanist to secure a religious exemption that lets him refuse to use AI at work — without believing in any god. David Durman, a nontheistic Humanist, obtained the workplace accommodation through the American Humanist Association (AHA), according to a statement the nonprofit published this week.

The case opens a new front in workplace policy: conscience-based opt-outs from AI are no longer reserved for traditional believers. Pope Leo XIV has publicly decried AI as a threat to human dignity, but Durman's example shows secular employees can invoke the same legal protections.

What does Humanism have to do with AI?

"Humanism is a collection of beliefs about the human experience and how humans interact with the world," Durman told TechCrunch. It centers on "human well-being and flourishing, both individually and collectively […] and implores a person to try to improve both their well-being and their flourishing as well as the others around them."

Durman's objection to AI rests on moral grounds. "The way we become moral actors for ourselves and for others is through the active application of our minds, and the diminishing of that [through AI use] is going to necessarily have a negative impact on our ability to do so," he said, pointing to what overreliance on AI could do to critical thinking.

In the AHA statement, he framed the stakes more broadly: "AI is interfering with people's ability to earn a living, the environmental costs spell disaster for humanity and our planet, and its supplanting and theft of human creativity threaten elements of our culture like art and literature that make society flourish."

Humanism is not anti-religious. It tends to appeal to people skeptical of a god or supernatural power who still want a scientific and moral framework. In short: the movement gives nonbelievers a structure that employment law can recognize as a belief system.

Who else is protected?

Alexandria Huiskens, Staff Attorney at the AHA, told TechCrunch the protection spans traditions. "Concern about AI and human dignity can run through several different faiths and traditions, whether that's Catholic teachings, or Universalism, or Humanism, and we want Humanists or nontheists to know that they fall into these categories — that they are also protected by the law at work," she said.

Durman is one of the first people to publicly discuss pursuing these protections. He was inspired by Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist and software engineer who secured similar protections for herself. Maus's case is the more unusual of the two: writing code with no AI assistance has become rare among software engineers.

Durman, by contrast, works in an administrative role supporting researchers who apply for grants, and he has not been required to use AI. That distinction matters. His exemption is preventive, not remedial — some of his colleagues and leadership have recommended AI tools, and he moved to secure the exemption now in case a suggestion becomes a mandate later.

How did the university respond?

University of Kentucky spokesperson Jay Blanton told TechCrunch the institution reviews religious-accommodation requests individually, weighing the employee's job responsibilities and circumstances.

"In this case, the university determined that an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of his position," Blanton said in a statement. "As technology and job responsibilities evolve, accommodations may be reviewed to ensure they remain reasonable and workable."

That caveat carries weight. The exemption is conditional and reviewable — it is not a permanent shield, and the university has reserved the right to revisit it as tools and roles change.

What does this mean for other workers?

Durman insists his move is personal, not prescriptive. "For me, this was about me and my convictions," he said. "I'm obviously not trying to tell people how to think or feel… But I do hope that it encourages people who have similar concerns to pursue not necessarily religious exemption, but pursue their concerns to the best of their ability where they feel is the most appropriate."

"I hope that if [others] have similar feelings, that they feel encouraged to pursue some kind of resolution," he added.

The takeaway in plain words: as employers push AI adoption from suggestion toward mandate, workers with documented objections — religious or secular — now have two public precedents for negotiating an exit.