A university research administrator has received a workplace accommodation under federal civil rights law after arguing that relying on artificial intelligence for thinking and decision-making conflicts with his deeply held commitment to human reasoning and moral responsibility.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A University of Kentucky employee has secured a religious accommodation allowing him to decline personal use of artificial intelligence at work, establishing what the American Humanist Association describes as its first successful exemption involving AI and secular humanist beliefs.
David Durman, a 45-year-old research administrator, received approval Sept. 25 after arguing that delegating intellectual work and decision-making to artificial intelligence systems would undermine his personal ethical development. The accommodation was granted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees against religious discrimination and requires reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
According to an Oct. 29 report by Tom’s Hardware, Durman pursued the exemption as university employees were increasingly encouraged to incorporate tools such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot and other generative AI systems into their daily responsibilities.
Although the university had not implemented a mandatory AI-use policy, Durman sought protection against a potential future requirement. His position involves assisting university researchers with grant applications and related administrative work, responsibilities he maintains can be performed without artificial intelligence.
Durman told Religion News Service in an Oct. 26 interview that humanism places particular importance on independent judgment, ethical responsibility and the development of individual reasoning abilities.
“The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” Durman said.
“And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor,” he added.
Durman said his objection extends beyond concerns about the accuracy or reliability of AI-generated information. He believes the process of thinking independently, evaluating situations and making decisions is itself essential to personal moral development.
His humanist philosophy emphasizes human well-being, individual responsibility and the importance of exercising reason rather than surrendering judgment to automated systems.
With assistance from the American Humanist Association, Durman submitted a formal accommodation request to the University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity in late August.
The organization helped prepare his letter, which described his objection to substituting machine-generated analysis for direct human participation in professional responsibilities.
“Substituting automated machine processing for human presence, authentic listening, and personal responsibility in my work directly conflicts with my obligation to uphold human dignity and flourishing as primary,” Durman wrote.
The request referenced the 2003 Humanist Manifesto, which emphasizes freedom of conscience, individual dignity and responsible decision-making.
Following a meeting with university officials in mid-September, the institution determined that allowing Durman to complete his work without personally using AI would not impose an undue burden on his department.
The university formally approved the accommodation Sept. 25.
According to the American Humanist Association’s Oct. 26 announcement, Durman continues performing his regular responsibilities without relying on generative AI systems.
The exemption is limited to his personal use of the technology. He remains obligated to attend meetings involving AI, collaborate with colleagues who use automated tools and submit materials through systems incorporating artificial intelligence when necessary.
A university official outlined those conditions in the written approval, specifying that Durman was excused from personally using AI to complete his assignments but not from participating in ordinary workplace processes involving the technology.
University of Kentucky spokesperson Jay Blanton subsequently confirmed that the institution evaluates accommodation requests individually, considering job requirements and whether an adjustment can be made without interfering with essential responsibilities.
“In this case, the university determined that an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position,” Blanton said in a statement to TechCrunch.
Blanton also indicated that accommodations may be reconsidered as workplace technology and job responsibilities change.
The American Humanist Association described Durman’s approval as a significant application of federal religious accommodation protections to objections involving artificial intelligence.
Alexandria Huiskens, a staff attorney for the organization who assisted Durman, said secular humanist convictions can qualify for protection under federal civil rights law even when they do not involve belief in a deity.
Federal courts have recognized that sincerely held nontheistic ethical systems may receive religious protections when they occupy a position in a person’s life comparable to traditional religious beliefs.
Title VII therefore does not limit qualifying accommodations to employees affiliated with established religious institutions.
Huiskens said the association considers Durman’s case its first successful workplace accommodation specifically involving a humanist objection to artificial intelligence.
Douglas Laycock, an emeritus law professor at the University of Virginia and the University of Texas, explained that such requests depend substantially on the sincerity and nature of the employee’s beliefs.
“It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment,” Laycock told Religion News Service.
“That’s a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate,” he added.
The legal standard does not mean that every employee who dislikes artificial intelligence automatically qualifies for an exemption. Employers must evaluate the individual’s sincerely held beliefs and determine whether the requested accommodation can be provided without substantial hardship.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that employers seeking to deny religious accommodations must demonstrate substantial increased costs in relation to their particular business, rather than relying on minor inconvenience.
Durman’s request did not result in litigation because the university agreed to accommodate his objections.
The administrator said he was partly inspired by Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who previously obtained a workplace accommodation based on religious concerns about AI.
After learning of her case, Durman contacted the American Humanist Association to explore whether his own convictions could support a similar request.
Unlike employees whose positions require regular interaction with AI systems, Durman said his responsibilities do not depend on the technology and that avoiding its use would not prevent his colleagues from carrying out their work.
He has also expressed broader objections to artificial intelligence, including concerns about its effects on employment, creative work, environmental resources and the increasing substitution of automated processes for human judgment.
In the association’s announcement, Durman said he considers independent reasoning and personal responsibility fundamental to his beliefs and that participation in the expansion of generative AI technology would conflict with those principles.
The case comes as employers across industries explore greater use of AI for administrative work, software development, research and workplace communications. It also raises questions about how companies and public institutions should address employees whose religious or ethical convictions conflict with emerging technologies.
Durman’s accommodation does not establish a universal exemption from AI requirements or require the University of Kentucky to modify its policies for other employees. Instead, it demonstrates how existing federal workplace protections can apply when an employer determines that a sincerely held belief warrants an individualized adjustment to job responsibilities.
Original article
Comments