🔍 Read the full analysis: The Case For Refusing AI At Work On Religious Grounds on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs and finding no undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent; its scope does not exempt him from every meeting or system involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work, after finding the accommodation would not place an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision recognizes a potential conflict between workplace AI requirements and sincerely held Humanist beliefs, but it is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a change in law.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, identifies as a Humanist and nonbeliever. In a letter dated August 24, he asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity to excuse him from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, Durman’s letter said. It also referred to suggested use of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, along with internal AI tools under development. Durman said using AI was not an essential function of his position. After meeting with university officials in mid-September, the office approved the accommodation on September 25. The AHA said the university found it posed “no undue burden” on the department.
The exemption is limited. Religion News Service reported, based on the approval letter, that Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” The university said accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change.
Infographic 01 · University of Kentucky · 2026
One letter, one meeting, one narrow exemption.
A Humanist research administrator asked not to use AI himself. His employer, which rolled out Copilot campus-wide, said yes.
- 31 Jul 2026Copilot promoted for meeting notesAt a department meeting, per Durman’s letter. Chatbots suggested, internal AI tools in development.
- 24 AugTwo-page letter to the Office of Equal OpportunityRequest under Title VII, drafted with the American Humanist Association. “Using AI or LLM tools is not an essential function of my position.”
- Mid-SepOne meetingDurman and the AHA’s staff attorney meet university officials. “A very collegial meeting.”
- 25 SepApproved“No undue burden on his department,” per the AHA. No lawsuit, no court, no precedent.
- 26 to 29 OctMade publicAHA, Religion News Service, then TechCrunch.
Excused
- Personal use of AI or LLM tools to complete his own tasks
- AI note-taking: he takes and shares his own notes
Still expected
- Taking part in meetings that use AI
- Submitting materials through systems that use AI
- Same duties; colleagues keep using AI
- May be reviewed “as technology and job responsibilities evolve”
“David is excused from personal use of AI to complete his tasks.”University approval letter, as quoted by Religion News Service. The letter itself is not public.
Sources: Durman letter, 24 Aug 2026; AHA press release, 26 Oct 2026; RNS, 26 Oct 2026 (quotes the approval letter); TechCrunch, 29 Oct 2026 (university statement). Timeline and layout: Thorsten Meyer.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
How the Exemption Fits Title VII
The case offers a concrete example of how a worker may ask for an adjustment when a workplace policy conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief, even if that belief is non-theistic. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers with 15 or more employees generally must accommodate an employee’s religious practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Federal guidance includes moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required.
That does not give employees a blanket right to reject any technology they dislike. A request is considered in relation to the person’s beliefs, actual duties and the employer’s operations. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying an accommodation must show that it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Employers must consider possible alternatives. The university’s decision suggests that, in this job, allowing manual work was compatible with the role and did not impose the stated level of burden.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Anker SOLIX C1000 Gen 2 Portable Power Station
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Request Before AI Was Required
Durman sought an accommodation before he was required to use AI, according to TechCrunch. He said colleagues and leaders had recommended trying the tools and that he wanted to address the issue in case their use later became mandatory. He submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity with help from the AHA, then met with office staff in mid-September. AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens described that meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.”
The university has also promoted broad access to AI. Microsoft’s customer story says the University of Kentucky reached “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot, giving more than 70,000 students and employees access. That is Microsoft’s description of the rollout; it does not establish that every employee must use the tool. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May. The AHA calls Durman the first Humanist to receive one; that characterization comes from the organization.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in a statement published by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Individual Decision
The university has not issued a court-tested ruling, and no lawsuit was involved. The approval therefore does not set legal precedent or guarantee that another employer must grant the same request. The available reporting does not detail every practical condition attached to the accommodation or how the university would respond if Durman’s duties changed.
It is also unclear whether the university will extend the accommodation to additional AI products or new tasks without reviewing the request. The reported approval permits some involvement in meetings and systems that use AI, so the boundary between personally using a tool and working alongside AI-enabled processes may depend on the specific task. The AHA’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption is the group’s account, not an independently established legal finding.
Review as Duties and Tools Change
The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. If Durman’s responsibilities or the department’s AI systems shift, officials could revisit whether the current arrangement still allows him to perform essential duties and whether another adjustment is workable. The available reports do not identify a scheduled review date or any further university decision.
For other workers, the case points to an individualized process rather than an automatic opt-out. Whether an accommodation is required will depend on the employee’s stated belief, the job’s essential functions and the effects of proposed alternatives on the employer. The Kentucky decision shows what one university approved in one role; how other requests will be handled remains unsettled.
Key Questions
What accommodation did the University of Kentucky approve?
It excused research administrator David Durman from personally using AI in his work. Reporting says the accommodation does not necessarily exempt him from meetings or systems that involve AI.
Why could a Humanist belief qualify for a religious accommodation?
Federal employment law can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a god is not required, though personal preference or political opinion alone is not necessarily covered.
Does the decision mean employees can refuse any AI tool?
No. This was an individual decision based on Durman’s beliefs, duties and the university’s assessment that the accommodation would not cause undue burden. It is not a blanket right to reject workplace technology.
Does the Kentucky decision set a legal precedent?
No. The university approved an accommodation without a lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not establish a binding legal precedent for other employers.
What happens if Durman’s job changes?
The university said accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. The reports do not specify a review date or how officials would handle any future change in responsibilities or AI use.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
