🔍 Read the full analysis: Can You Refuse AI At Work? A Humanist Won A Religious Exemption. What US Law Covers, And Where It Stops 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 a religious accommodation. The decision is an individual workplace adjustment, not a court ruling or a binding precedent, and it 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 AI tools at work, recognizing his Humanist beliefs through its accommodation process. The September 25 decision is an individual employer action—not a court ruling—and the exemption is limited: Durman may still need to participate in meetings or submit materials through systems that use AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In a letter dated August 24, he asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity to exempt him from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. His request covered tools already in use and those adopted later. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association (AHA).
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the adjustment would pose “no undue burden on his 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 does not remove Durman from every AI-enabled process. As described in the approval letter and reported by Religion News Service, he may still have to attend meetings that use AI or submit work through systems that incorporate it. The university also said accommodations can be reviewed if job duties change. The university’s specific approval terms, rather than a general right to refuse all workplace AI, define the scope of this case.
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 Religious Accommodation Applies
The case illustrates how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act can apply when an employee’s sincerely held beliefs conflict with a workplace requirement. Federal regulations define religious beliefs broadly enough to include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Humanism may qualify, but a label alone does not automatically establish eligibility: the employee’s belief must be sincerely held and the circumstances are considered individually.
An accommodation is not an automatic veto over an employer’s technology policy. Employers must consider a request and whether a workable adjustment is possible without undue hardship. In the university’s account, Durman could continue doing the essential functions of his role without personally using AI. A worker whose duties depend on using an AI system, or where an alternative would impose substantial costs, could face a different outcome. The ruling matters to workers and employers as AI tools spread, but it does not decide how every future request should be handled.
Products Worth Considering
DJI Osmo Mobile 7P Phone Gimbal with Mic Mini Transmitter, Infinity Black
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose TV Speaker Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From AI Recommendation to Exemption
Durman’s request followed a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to his letter. He also cited suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal systems under development. Reporting by TechCrunch said he had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in anticipation of possible future expectations.
The request was made with help from the American Humanist Association, which advocates for Humanists, atheists and other nontheists. AHA staff attorney Huiskens described the mid-September discussion with the university as “a very collegial meeting,” according to Religion News Service. The university’s decision became public through AHA materials and reports by Religion News Service and TechCrunch from October 26 to 29.
Federal law requires covered employers—generally those with at least 15 employees—to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that an employer claiming undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The AHA has described Durman as the first Humanist to receive this kind of exemption; that is the organization’s characterization, 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 released by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The approval applies to one employee in one role. No court considered the request, and the decision does not establish a legal precedent. The university’s complete reasoning and any detailed procedures for reviewing future changes to Durman’s duties have not been set out in the reporting cited here.
It is also unclear how other employers would assess similar requests, especially where AI use is closely tied to a job’s essential functions. The AHA’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption has not been independently established as a nationwide finding. The legal outcome of an accommodation request depends on the employee’s beliefs, the work involved and the employer’s circumstances.
Requests Will Depend on Job Duties
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as an employee’s job changes. For Durman, the immediate arrangement permits him to avoid personally using AI while continuing his existing work; the public accounts do not identify a further deadline or appeal in this case.
Employees considering a similar request would need to explain the conflict between their sincerely held belief and a workplace rule, while employers would need to assess the job’s essential functions and possible alternatives. Whether a particular request must be granted depends on the facts and the applicable law. This report describes the Kentucky case and is not legal advice.
Key Questions
Can a Humanist request a religious accommodation at work?
Yes. Federal workplace law can cover sincerely held nontheistic beliefs, including beliefs that meet the legal standard for religious accommodation. Whether a specific request qualifies depends on the employee’s beliefs and circumstances.
Does the Kentucky decision mean workers can refuse all AI?
No. The university approved an individual adjustment for Durman’s role. He may still have to attend meetings or submit materials through systems that use AI, and another worker’s duties could lead to a different result.
Was the exemption ordered by a court?
No. The University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request through its workplace accommodation process. There was no lawsuit, and the decision does not set a court precedent.
Can an employer deny a religious accommodation?
An employer may deny a request if providing it would cause undue hardship under the applicable legal standard. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff decision, an employer claiming hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
