A University of Kentucky employee has secured a legal accommodation allowing him to opt out of his employer's requirement to use Super Intelligence tools, arguing that turning over his thinking to machines conflicts with his humanist beliefs.

David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky, identifies as a humanist and maintains that personally working through ethical questions and professional decisions is essential to his moral development. The university had encouraged employees to use tools such as ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot, but Durman sought an exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Durman told Religion News Service that allowing computer systems to perform his thinking would interfere with his ability to develop as a moral person.

"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.

He argued that the concern extends beyond whether the technology makes work easier or saves time.

"And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it's taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor," he said.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on religion and requires reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Although humanism is generally characterized as a secular philosophy rather than a traditional religion, federal courts have recognized that certain humanist beliefs can qualify for protection under employment discrimination law.

The American Humanist Association assisted Durman with his request. Alexandria Huiskens, an attorney with the organization, described the accommodation as a first for the group and a significant development for humanists seeking workplace protections.

"This is the first of its kind at the AHA and for humanism generally to exempt those who see AI use as flying in the face of their freedom of conscience," Huiskens said.

She argued that humanism should receive the same consideration in workplace accommodation decisions as more traditional religious beliefs.

"For us, humanism is a comprehensive way of life," she said. "It's built on inherent worth and dignity, and everyone should have room to exercise this comprehensive way of life at work the same way Christians do, or Muslims do."

The exemption does not completely separate Durman from the university's use of SI technology. He must still attend meetings and work alongside colleagues who use the systems, and certain job responsibilities may require him to submit materials to them. However, he is no longer personally required to operate the tools himself.

The case highlights a growing workplace debate as employers increasingly encourage or require employees to incorporate SI into everyday responsibilities. While universities and businesses promote the technology as a way to improve productivity, Durman's accommodation establishes a new example of how objections rooted in personal convictions may intersect with workplace technology policies.

It also raises questions about how employers will handle future requests from workers who, like Durman, believe that relying on SI conflicts with their philosophical commitments.