You don’t need to believe in a god to get a religious exemption from using AI at work

When Belief Meets Policy: Securing an AI‑Free Workplace Without a God

Employers are increasingly mandating or encouraging the use of generative AI tools, from code‑completion assistants to automated writing aides. While many workers embrace the productivity boost, a growing minority feels that reliance on AI conflicts with deeply held philosophical or moral convictions. One recent case shows that you don’t need to subscribe to a traditional religion to qualify for a religious accommodation that exempts you from using AI at work.

---

1. The Humanist Argument for an AI Exemption

David Durman, an administrator at the University of Kentucky, identifies as a secular humanist—a worldview that emphasizes human well‑being, critical thinking, and the flourishing of individuals and societies without reference to a deity. Durman argued that AI tools erode the very capacities humanism seeks to nurture:

• Critical agency – Over‑reliance on AI can diminish our ability to reason, evaluate, and make independent judgments.
• Creative integrity – Automated content generation threatens the authenticity of human artistic and scholarly expression.
• Environmental impact – The energy consumption of large AI models runs counter to a stewardship ethic that many humanists share.

By framing these concerns as sincerely held beliefs about how he should live and work, Durman positioned his request within the same legal framework that protects traditional religious practices.

---

2. Legal Foundations: Religious Accommodation in the Workplace

In the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Courts have interpreted “religion” broadly, encompassing non‑theistic belief systems that occupy a role similar to traditional faiths in a person’s life. The American Humanist Association (AHA) has long advocated for this inclusive reading, arguing that secular humanism qualifies as a protected belief system.

Durman’s request was evaluated by the university’s accommodation office, which considered:

1. Sincerity of belief – Evidence of his long‑standing humanist affiliation and public statements.
2. Job relevance – Whether his duties genuinely require AI assistance (they do not; his role supports grant applications rather than coding or content creation).
3. Undue hardship – Whether exempting him would impose significant operational costs (the university concluded it would not).

The outcome: a formal exemption allowing Durman to decline AI tools while still fulfilling his essential job functions.

---

3. Precedents and the Growing Landscape of AI‑Related Accommodations

Durman is not alone. Earlier, Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer, secured a similar exemption after expressing concerns that AI‑generated code could compromise her sense of professional integrity. These cases illustrate a broader trend:

• Diverse belief systems – From Catholic doctrine to secular humanism, a range of worldviews are invoking AI‑related objections.
• Sector‑wide relevance – While exemptions are more straightforward in administrative or research‑support roles, they are also emerging in technical positions where AI assistance is becoming the norm.
• Policy implications – Companies may need to craft clear AI‑use policies that acknowledge accommodation requests, outline review processes, and define what constitutes an undue hardship.

---

4. Practical Steps for Employees and Employers

For employees who feel AI conflicts with their convictions:

1. Document your belief – Gather statements, affiliation letters, or publications that articulate your stance.
2. Identify job‑specific impacts – Clarify how AI use would affect your core responsibilities.
3. Submit a formal request – Follow your organization’s accommodation procedure, citing Title VII protections.

For employers navigating these requests:

1. Establish a transparent process – Provide a clear point of contact (HR or a designated accommodation officer) and outline evaluation criteria.
2. Assess undue hardship objectively – Consider whether alternative workflows or tools can meet business needs without forcing AI use.
3. Communicate consistently – Keep all parties informed about decisions, timelines, and any required adjustments to duties.

---

Conclusion

The rise of AI in the workplace is prompting a re‑examination of what constitutes a protected belief. As demonstrated by David Durman’s successful exemption, secular humanists—and likely other non‑theistic philosophies—can invoke religious accommodation statutes to safeguard their right to work without AI. Employers should anticipate an increase in such requests and proactively develop policies that balance technological advancement with respect for diverse convictions.