🔍 Read the full analysis: How An Employee Won A Religious Exemption From AI At Work 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 for a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools at work. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to refuse AI; the university says he can still perform his job’s essential functions.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work. The September 25 decision followed his request based on Humanist beliefs, but it is an individual workplace accommodation—not a court ruling or a general exemption from workplace AI systems.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In a letter dated August 24, he asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity to excuse him from personally using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The request followed a department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter.
The university approved the request on September 25, after Durman and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with office officials in mid-September. The association said the university found the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on Durman’s department. 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 approval has limits. According to the approval letter as reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. Reporting by TechCrunch said Durman had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in case suggested use became a mandate.
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
A Personal Exemption, Not an AI Ban
The decision shows that an employee may be able to request a religious accommodation when a workplace rule conflicts with a sincerely held belief, even when that belief is nontheistic. It does not establish that employees can refuse any AI tool, or that employers must approve every request. Each case depends on the employee’s circumstances, job duties and the effect of an accommodation on the employer.
For employers introducing AI, the Kentucky case highlights the practical distinction between providing access to a tool and requiring every worker to use it. The university found a way for Durman to continue performing his essential duties without personally using AI. A role in which AI use is essential could lead to a different assessment, and an employer may reject an accommodation if it meets the legal standard for undue hardship.
For employees, the reported outcome is a specific example, not a guarantee. Durman made a written request, explained the conflict with his beliefs and proposed an alternative. The university’s decision reflects its assessment of his role and department; it does not determine how another employer must respond.
Products Worth Considering
DJI Mic 3 Wireless Microphone System (2 Transmitters, 1 Receiver, Charging Case)
Sony WH-1000XM6 Wireless Noise-Canceling Over-Ear Headphones, Blue, Bundle
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Humanist Beliefs Fit Title VII
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The source material describes the law as applying to employers with 15 or more employees. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation, religious beliefs can include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Political views and personal preferences alone are not covered.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business, according to the source material. The Kentucky approval was made by the university’s equal opportunity office. No lawsuit was filed, and the decision creates no legal precedent.
The American Humanist Association said Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption. That is the organization’s claim, not an independently established finding. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received a religious exemption from using AI in May.
“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 full practical effect of the accommodation is not clear from the public reporting. The reported approval letter allows for some contact with AI-enabled meetings and systems, but the materials do not spell out how the university will handle every tool or workflow Durman may encounter. The university also says accommodations can be reviewed as work changes.
It is also unclear whether AI use will become a formal requirement in Durman’s role or whether the university will need to revisit the arrangement. The reporting says he requested an exemption before being required to use the tools. The decision does not settle how another employer should assess a similar request, especially where AI use is tied more directly to essential duties or where a proposed alternative imposes substantial costs.
How the Arrangement May Evolve
The immediate next step is the university’s ongoing application of the accommodation as Durman’s duties and workplace tools change. The reported approval does not name a scheduled review date or describe a formal appeal process. If AI becomes a required part of his work, the university may need to assess the accommodation again against his essential job functions and the applicable hardship standard.
Other employees considering a request would need to explain the conflict between their sincerely held belief and a work rule, while employers would need to evaluate the individual request and possible alternatives. The Kentucky case offers an example of one employer’s decision, but any broader legal guidance would have to come from later cases, agency action or other authoritative sources.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI tools in his work as a research administrator. The reported terms do not exempt him from every meeting or system that uses AI.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
Under the law described in the source material, belief in a god is not required. Sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs may qualify when held with the strength of traditional religious views. Not every personal or political objection qualifies.
Does this decision give all workers a right to refuse AI?
No. The approval applies to one employee and his circumstances. Employers assess requests individually, including whether the worker can perform essential duties and whether the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Was the Kentucky decision a court ruling?
No. The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the accommodation. There was no lawsuit, and the decision does not set a legal precedent.
Could the accommodation change later?
Yes. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The public reporting does not identify a review date or specify how every future AI tool will be handled.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
