🔍 Read the full analysis: Refusing AI At Work: When Can A Religious Exemption Apply? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools. The decision is specific to his job and circumstances, not a court ruling or precedent; federal law can cover sincerely held nontheistic beliefs, subject to limits including undue hardship for employers.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, according to the university’s decision as described by the American Humanist Association and media reports. The September 25 accommodation recognizes that U.S. employment law can protect some sincerely held nontheistic beliefs; it is an individual workplace decision, not a court ruling or a legal precedent.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. 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 systems. He offered to take and share his own meeting notes instead, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association.
The university approved the request after a meeting with Durman and association representatives in mid-September. The association said the office found the accommodation would pose “no undue burden” on his department. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that an accommodation could be provided while allowing Durman to continue performing the essential functions of his position.
The approval is limited: reporting by Religion News Service, citing the letter, says Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use it. The university can review accommodations if job duties change. Durman was reportedly not yet required to use AI when he applied; he sought an exemption after AI tools were promoted at work, in case their use later became a requirement.
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 Affects AI Policies
The case illustrates that an employer’s adoption of AI does not automatically settle whether every employee must use it. Under federal employment law, a covered employer may need to make a reasonable adjustment when a worker’s sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a workplace rule, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship. The specific outcome depends on the employee’s duties and the effect of the proposed adjustment on the employer.
For workers, the decision shows that a request can be made before an AI tool becomes mandatory, although approval is not guaranteed. For employers, it highlights the value of considering individual requests and alternatives rather than treating AI use as a blanket requirement. The Kentucky decision does not determine how another employer, job or belief would be assessed.
The policy question matters as workplaces add AI to routine tasks such as writing, meeting documentation and file summaries. An exemption from personally operating a tool may not mean avoiding every AI-enabled system; Durman’s reported approval still allows some indirect exposure. That distinction makes the scope of any accommodation important to both the employee and the employer.
Products Worth Considering
Bose SoundLink Flex (2nd Gen) Portable Bluetooth Speaker
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Federal Law
The sequence began after a July 31, 2026, department meeting promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes. Durman’s August 24 letter also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal systems under development. He asked for an accommodation covering current and future tools, according to the letter.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers with at least 15 employees to accommodate religious practices unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a deity is not a requirement, but a personal preference or political position alone is not necessarily protected.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy: an employer refusing an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The source report also describes a separate case reported by Business Insider in June: Unitarian Universalist software engineer Erin Maus received an exemption from AI use in May. The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive one; that characterization is the group’s claim.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in a statement cited by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The university’s approval does not create a binding rule for other employers. The publicly described material does not establish how the same request would be handled in a role where AI use is considered essential, or if avoiding a tool would impose substantial costs on a different business. Each request depends on its facts, including the belief, the job’s duties and possible alternatives.
The full practical boundaries of Durman’s accommodation are also not clear from the available reporting. The cited approval allows some participation in AI-enabled meetings and systems, while excusing his personal use; details about how that distinction works day to day have not been reported. The university may revisit the accommodation if his duties change.
Claims about whether Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption come from the American Humanist Association. The case was approved internally, with no lawsuit or court judgment. It therefore does not resolve broader disputes about when workplace AI requirements conflict with religious protections.
How the Accommodation May Change
The immediate next step is continued implementation of the accommodation within Durman’s existing role. The university has said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change, so a shift in his responsibilities or in the AI systems he is expected to use could prompt further discussion. The source material does not report a scheduled review or a later legal proceeding.
Employees who believe an AI requirement conflicts with a protected religious belief can raise the issue with their employer and seek an individualized accommodation; this account is not legal advice. Employers facing a request must consider the particular duties and potential adjustments, rather than assume that either every AI task can be waived or that every request must be granted.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that employees can refuse AI at work?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual accommodation for David Durman. There was no lawsuit or court ruling, so the decision does not set a legal precedent.
Can a Humanist or atheist request a religious accommodation?
Federal employment rules can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs, including some nontheistic beliefs. Whether a particular belief and request qualify depends on the facts; belief in a god is not required.
Does the Kentucky approval let Durman avoid every AI system?
Not according to the reporting. The accommodation excuses him from personally using AI, but he may still attend meetings involving AI or submit materials through systems that use it.
Can an employer deny a religious accommodation?
Yes, if the employer can establish that the accommodation would cause undue hardship under the applicable legal standard. The assessment is tied to the particular business and job; the Kentucky decision does not guarantee approval in other workplaces.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
