University of Kentucky Grants Employee a Religious Exemption From Using AI at Work

David Durman, 45, filed the request in August under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law that requires US employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, including nontheistic ones, according to Fortune, which first reported the case on October 30. The university met to assess whether his views were sincere and approved the request on September 25, finding that the accommodation would not cause it undue hardship, Fortune reported. The story has since been picked up by other outlets, including Arabic-language media in the UAE.

Durman told Fortune he has been a Humanist for about 30 years. Humanism is a nontheistic belief system centred on human wellbeing and personal moral responsibility. He argued that handing judgement over to software weakens a person's ability to live by those values. "To me, the offloading of any decision-making capacity or ability to interpret the world around you... reduces your ability to act towards those goals," he said. He also said he switches off Gemini in Google searches and disables as many AI features as he can in his personal life.

The university does not yet have a directive requiring staff to use AI. Fortune reported that Durman wanted to get ahead of a possible future mandate, after colleagues and managers had increasingly suggested he use the tools. "My exemption doesn't apply to other employees, and I'm not trying to affect other people's work," he said.

How the Case Was Built

Durman was helped by Alexandria Huiskens, an attorney who works with the American Humanist Association. She told Fortune that his decades of practice and his efforts to avoid AI outside work helped show his belief was sincere. "A lot of Humanists don't realize that they can approach their employer with this kind of exemption or accommodation," she said.

The case follows that of Erin Maus, a software engineer and practising Unitarian Universalist who received a religious exemption from AI use at her technology employer in May, as reported by Business Insider. Durman cited her as an inspiration.

The exemption has limits. US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance separates religious beliefs from personal preferences and political or economic objections, so a general dislike of AI would not qualify. Each request turns on the employee's beliefs, their essential duties and the effect on the employer. Since the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, however, an employer refusing a request has to show that accommodation would bring substantial costs, not just minor inconvenience.

Why It Matters for Employers

The case comes as companies push staff harder to use AI. Shopify chief executive Tobi Lütke has called AI use a baseline expectation, and Amazon has urged its software engineers to adopt the tools where useful. Gallup data cited by Fortune show that 52% of US employees used AI at work at least a few times a year as of May 2026, up from 21% in 2023.

For HR and legal teams writing AI-use mandates, the Kentucky decision shows that a blanket requirement can run into anti-discrimination law. Employers in the United States will need a process for assessing belief-based objections one case at a time, and for showing undue hardship if they refuse one. The case does not create a general right to refuse AI, but it gives workers with documented, long-held convictions a tested route to ask.