Humanist Employee Excused from Using AI on Job Based on Personal Beliefs

A University of Kentucky employee requested and received workplace accommodations excusing him from using AI as part of his job, based on his beliefs as a Humanist.

As the American Humanist Association (AHA) recently detailed, David Durman is a research administrator employed by the University of Kentucky. With the AHA’s support, Durman sent a letter to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) in August, requesting reasonable accommodations on the basis of his “sincerely held beliefs as a Humanist.”

According to the AHA, Durman met with the OEO in mid-September. His request was approved by the end of the month, when the office determined that it posed no undue burden on his department. Durman continues to perform all of his job responsibilities without using AI.

The AHA defines Humanism as a progressive, non-theistic movement for change, grounded in reason, compassion and shared humanity. In a statement, Durman explained how his beliefs as a Humanist should allow him to avoid using AI on the job.

“When it comes to AI technology—particularly generative AI and LLMs [large language model systems]—it’s clear to me that the existence and use of these technologies run contrary to human well-being,” said Durman.

“I sought out workplace accommodations because using AI violates my deeply held Humanist beliefs,” he continued, “which demand I take personal responsibility for the morality of my actions. I cannot, in good conscience, partake in the use and proliferation of this technology.”

Durman’s beliefs are “sincerely held,” and the University of Kentucky was right to grant him an accommodation based on those beliefs, added Alexandria Huiskens, AHA staff attorney, in a statement.

“Comprehensive non-theistic belief systems like Humanism are entitled to the same religious protection under Title VII and the United States Constitution as ‘traditional’ religions, and it is a reflection of our country’s deep, longstanding commitment to religious freedom for all that non-theists like Mr. Durman are entitled to these same protections and freedom of conscience.”