According to the “Terminator” movies, Skynet was supposed to become self-aware and achieve the Singularity over 29 years ago. If Judgment Day is just running behind schedule and still happens, Skynet may have another name besides John Connor to settle a grudge with.
David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky (UK), was granted permission to avoid personally using artificial intelligence (AI) on the job as a religious beliefs accommodation under Title VII. Durman, who is a humanist, claimed that being forced to use AI tools like Microsoft Teams Co-Pilot, ChatGPT, and Claude would conflict with his sincerely held beliefs. In September 2026, the university agreed to his request, determining that Durman could avoid personally using AI in his work, although he would still have to attend meetings or submit materials through platforms that use AI.
While some may question whether secular humanism should be considered a religion, religious protections are not necessarily limited to belief systems centered on a deity. The University determined that Durman's objection to AI use did not cause an undue hardship on the educational organization.
In a marked change from what we usually report, the matter was settled without a single court filing (or an appearance by a T-1000).
A Matter of Belief, Not Just an AI Opponent
While anyone trying to get an actual person on the phone to handle a banking issue has likely contemplated foregoing all AI tech, that’s generally not enough to claim it as a personal religion. Details may vary, but for most, religion provides an ethical framework that gives them hope and meaning.
What is secular humanism? According to the American Humanist Association (AHA), the humanist manifesto urges people to be “guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience,” which in turn will lead to a life “lived well and fully.” It grounds this in its 10 Commitments, which include altruism, empathy, ethical development, and critical thinking, with the latter serving as the crux of Durman’s Title VII claim.
The AHA’s definition of critical thinking states, “I will practice good judgment by asking questions and thinking for myself,” and notes that it’s a “skill that grows with practice.” This became an issue for Durman when UK asked him and other members of his department to start using AI tools in their daily workflow, which he believed would interfere with his critical thinking skills, among other objections.
After reaching out to the AHA for assistance, Durman filed for a Title VII religious accommodation with the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). In what’s believed to be the first instance of an AI exemption for a humanist, the OEO granted Durman’s request in September 2026. This followed an AI exemption granted to Erin Maus in May of this year. Maus, a Unitarian Universalist, argued that using AI would raise ethical and environmental concerns that violated her religious beliefs.
An Accommodation, Not an Apocalypse
It’s a rare day when AI-related stories aren’t dominating the news feed, with even Pope Leo XIV weighing in with his concerns. While most business owners are delighted to incorporate effective AI tools into their workplace, they must be mindful not to let them overshadow employee morale and their rights under Title VII.
Durman’s Title VII accommodation agreement shows that reasonable workplace accommodations can be shaped to keep both employers and employees satisfied. Not every request needs to involve the EEOC, investigations, and lawsuits.
Employers must reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, this requires a substantial burden to the overall organization, not merely an inconvenience or minimal cost.
Employers can assess whether a request would cause an undue hardship, but it’s often a good idea to get an attorney's input to ensure you have a strong legal foundation for the decision.
Innovations can be wonderful, but some may not work with all employees. Thoughtfully considering requests and accommodations may yield an unexpected solution at a fraction of the cost of litigation. No Judgment Day required.
