🔍 Read the full analysis: Workplace AI And Religious Exemptions: What Employees Should Know on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or precedent, and does not exempt him from every work process involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial-intelligence tools at work, finding that the accommodation would not create an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision applies to one employee; it was an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling establishing a general right to refuse AI.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. He requested the accommodation after AI tools, including Microsoft Teams Copilot, were promoted for meeting notes at a department meeting on July 31. His August 24 letter asked to be excused from personally using AI or large language model tools for tasks such as transcription, note-taking and decision-making. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association.
The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request on September 25 after meeting with Durman and association staff in mid-September. The approval is narrow in scope: according to the approval letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate it. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that an accommodation could be provided while allowing him to perform the essential functions of his position.
The reported case became public through the American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch between October 26 and 29. Durman was not yet required to use AI when he sought the exemption, TechCrunch reported; colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools, and he made the request in anticipation of possible future requirements. The university says accommodations can be reviewed as jobs 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 Affects Workers
The decision shows how an employer may handle a conflict between an employee’s sincerely held beliefs and workplace technology practices. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The law covers employers with 15 or more employees.
For workers, the case is a reminder that they can ask for an accommodation, but approval depends on the circumstances. An employer may consider the employee’s duties, whether the work can still be completed and the practical effects of alternatives. Durman’s department reportedly found he could continue doing his job without personally using AI. A position that depends on AI tools could present different facts. The decision is not a blanket opt-out from AI or a guarantee that another employer must reach the same result.
It also matters to employers adopting AI across teams. A request may require an individualized review rather than a single rule for every employee. The university’s reported decision indicates that participation in AI-enabled workflows and personal use of an AI tool can be treated as distinct questions, though the accommodation’s exact application may depend on the task and workplace systems.
Products Worth Considering
Dell XPS 13 9350 Copilot+ Laptop, 13.4-inch 120Hz Display, Intel Core Ultra 7 256V, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Ubuntu Linux 24.04 LTS
Apple MacBook Pro 2023 with M2 Pro Chip, 14‑inch, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD – Space Gray
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Humanist Beliefs Under Title VII
U.S. employment law does not limit religious accommodation requests to people who believe in a god or belong to an organized faith. 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. That can include nontheistic belief systems such as Humanism. Political views and personal preferences, on their own, do not qualify simply because an employee strongly holds them.
The legal standard for refusing an accommodation changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer claiming undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The employer must consider the circumstances and possible alternatives; coworkers’ dislike of an accommodation is not, by itself, enough.
The Kentucky decision followed an earlier reported case: Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The American Humanist Association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency.
““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 Approval Remain
The public reporting does not establish how the university will apply the accommodation to every future tool, task or change in Durman’s job. The approval letter allows for some involvement in meetings that use AI and systems that process materials with AI, but the precise boundaries in day-to-day work are not fully clear from the available details. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change.
It is also not clear whether Durman will ever face a formal requirement to use AI personally. The request was made before such a requirement was reported. Nor does the case settle how another employer should respond to a similar request: the university’s decision is not a court judgment, and the facts of a different role, proposed accommodation and business impact could differ.
Future Duties May Prompt Review
The next developments will depend on how Durman’s duties and workplace tools change. The university says it may review the accommodation if his job changes, while the current approval lets him continue performing his role without personally using AI. If an employer introduces a new requirement, the relevant questions will include whether the employee’s belief is sincerely held, what the job requires and whether a workable alternative would impose undue hardship.
Employees considering a request can document the work requirement that conflicts with their beliefs and explain what adjustment they are seeking. Employers must assess requests on their individual facts under applicable law. This article describes reported events and general legal context; it is not legal advice.
Key Questions
Can a nonreligious employee request a religious accommodation?
Possibly. Under EEOC regulations, religious beliefs can include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that occupy a place in a person’s life comparable to traditional religious beliefs. The facts of the person’s belief and request matter; a political view or personal preference alone is not automatically covered.
Does the Kentucky decision give every employee the right to refuse AI?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual accommodation for David Durman. It was not a court ruling or a general exemption for workers, and another request could be evaluated differently depending on the job and the proposed accommodation.
Can Durman avoid all systems that use AI?
Not necessarily. The reported approval excuses him from personally using AI, but the letter as quoted by Religion News Service says he may still take part in meetings that use AI and submit materials through AI-enabled systems.
The employer can assess the employee’s duties, the conflict with the sincerely held belief, possible alternatives and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship under the legal standard. The reported Kentucky decision found that Durman could continue performing his essential job functions without personally using AI.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
