🔍 Read the full analysis: Can Workers Decline AI On Religious Grounds? The Limits Of US Law on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 on Humanist grounds. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a legal precedent, and it does not exempt him from every workplace system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, after he said doing so conflicted with his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent for other workers.
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 and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He offered to take and share his own meeting notes instead. The American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him prepare the request, published the letter.
The university approved the accommodation after a meeting between Durman, AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the arrangement posed “no 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 letter as reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings that use AI and submit materials through systems that include AI. The university may review accommodations as jobs change. Durman had not yet been required to use the tools when he applied; he sought an accommodation after AI was promoted at a department meeting and in anticipation of possible future requirements.
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 case illustrates how religious accommodation law may apply to workplace AI policies, while also showing that any exemption depends on the worker’s circumstances and the employer’s operational needs. Under federal employment law, a covered employer generally must accommodate a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a workplace rule unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
For employees, the Kentucky decision is evidence that asking for an accommodation can be possible even when the belief is non-theistic. It does not guarantee that another employer must grant the same request. The outcome may depend on whether the belief qualifies for protection, what the job requires, and whether an accommodation would impose the legally defined hardship on that employer.
For employers adopting AI, the decision points to the need to consider individual requests rather than assume every employee must use a tool in the same way. A worker’s exemption is not a general right to reject all AI-related systems, and it does not settle how future disputes over AI mandates will be decided.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Mechanical Full-Size Wireless Mechanical Keyboard, Tactile Quiet Switches, Backlit Keys, Bluetooth, USB-C, Multi-Device, Graphit
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
Logitech MX Keypad Programmable Macro Pad, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Federal Religious Protection Applies
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers with 15 or more employees to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with workplace requirements, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when held with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a deity is not required, although a personal preference or political position alone is not necessarily protected.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in Groff v. DeJoy in 2023. An employer refusing an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business; coworker dislike alone is not enough, and alternatives must be considered. That standard does not mean every request must be granted: the effect on the work and the employer’s operations remains relevant.
Durman’s case was handled through the university’s internal equal-opportunity process, not litigation. The university found a workable arrangement for his research-administration role. The AHA says he is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that is the organization’s characterization, not a finding by a court or government agency. Business Insider previously reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May 2026.
““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
Where the Accommodation Stops
The public accounts do not detail every condition attached to the approval or explain how the university will handle each possible future AI tool. The reported terms permit some participation in AI-enabled meetings and systems, so the accommodation is not a blanket exemption from exposure to AI. It is also not clear how the arrangement would change if Durman’s duties or the essential requirements of his position change.
The decision does not test the law in court, and no court has ruled on Durman’s request. Other workers may face different outcomes depending on their beliefs, job duties and the costs or practical effects of an accommodation. The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive an exemption has not been independently established as a nationwide legal first.
Future Requests Will Turn on the Job
The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as positions change. For workers who believe an AI requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief, the Kentucky case shows that they can ask their employer for an accommodation, but it does not predict the answer. Any dispute would turn on the specific belief, work requirement, proposed alternative and evidence about undue hardship.
Further developments may come if employers make AI use mandatory or if a denied request leads to a legal challenge. For now, the confirmed outcome is limited: one university approved one employee’s request after finding that he could continue performing his job without personally using the tools.
Key Questions
Can a worker ask not to use AI for religious reasons?
Yes. Under Title VII, covered employers generally must consider requests to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with workplace rules, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Whether a particular request qualifies depends on the circumstances.Does the Kentucky decision mean nonreligious beliefs are protected?
The EEOC’s regulation can cover certain sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs even when they are not based on belief in a god. Durman’s approval was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling establishing how every non-theistic belief must be treated.Was Durman excused from all AI-related systems?
No. According to the approval letter as reported by Religion News Service, he may still need to attend meetings that use AI and submit materials through systems that include it. The reported accommodation is from personally using AI tools to do his work.Does the decision set a precedent for other employers?
No. The university handled the request internally, and there was no lawsuit or court ruling. Other employers must assess requests based on the employee’s circumstances, job duties and the effects of an accommodation.Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
