🔍 Read the full analysis: A Religious Exemption From AI At Work: What The Ruling Means on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools, citing that the arrangement would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent, and its scope 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, recognizing his Humanist beliefs as grounds for a religious accommodation. The September 25 decision is an individual employment adjustment, not a court ruling, and does not establish a binding legal precedent for other employers.
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 meeting notes himself. The university approved the request after a meeting with him and representatives of the American Humanist Association, which assisted with the request.
The accommodation is limited. According to the approval letter as reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. 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 university also said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change.
The university’s decision followed recommendations to try tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot. Durman said he was not yet required to use AI and sought approval in case recommendations became a requirement. The American Humanist Association said the office found the accommodation would pose “no undue burden on his department.” That description comes from the organization; the available source material does not include a separate public statement from the university detailing its full assessment.
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 One Worker Can Decline AI
The case offers a concrete example of how a workplace AI rollout may intersect with religious accommodation rules. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Federal guidance recognizes that religion can include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious convictions; belief in a deity is not required.
That does not give employees a general right to reject workplace technology. The question is whether a belief is sincerely held and conflicts with a job rule, and whether the employer can accommodate it without undue hardship. Durman’s role could be performed without his personal use of AI, according to the account of the decision. A worker whose essential duties depend on AI, or whose accommodation would impose substantial costs on the employer’s operations, could face a different outcome.
For employers, the approval indicates that an AI policy may need to be considered alongside existing accommodation duties rather than applied identically in every case. For employees, it shows that a request can be raised before a tool becomes mandatory, but approval depends on individual circumstances. The decision does not settle how other employers or courts should handle similar requests.
Popular right now
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
Dyson Car+Boat Cordless Handheld Vacuum
Vitamix Propel Series 510 Professional-Grade Blender, 3 Programs, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From AI Recommendation to Approval
According to Durman’s accommodation letter, AI note-taking was promoted at a department meeting on July 31. The letter referred to Microsoft Teams Copilot, commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, and internal AI systems in development. On August 24, Durman submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity. He met with the office and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September, and the office approved the request on September 25.
The case became public between October 26 and 29 through the American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch. The university has also been described as an active adopter of AI: Microsoft’s customer story says more than 70,000 students and employees had access to Microsoft 365 Copilot. That figure is Microsoft’s own account of deployment, not an independent measure of how often the tool is used.
The Kentucky approval was not the only reported workplace exemption. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The AHA describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that is the organization’s claim, not a finding established by a court or a comprehensive public record.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in a statement reported by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The decision does not explain in full how the university assessed every possible impact on the department, and it has not been tested in court. It is therefore unclear how other employers would evaluate a similar request, especially when AI use is closely tied to a role’s essential duties or a particular workflow.
The precise boundaries of Durman’s accommodation also matter. The reported approval allows for continued participation in some meetings and systems where AI is used, while excusing his personal use of AI. The public accounts do not spell out how every future tool, task or change in his job will be handled. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change.
Federal law’s undue-hardship standard is not simply a matter of inconvenience or coworkers’ objections. Following the Supreme Court’s 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. How that standard applies to a specific AI-related request depends on the facts. This article describes reported events and general legal context; it is not legal advice.
Future Review as Duties Change
The university’s stated process leaves room to review the accommodation if Durman’s position or the tools used in his department change. The public reporting does not identify a scheduled review date or a next formal milestone. The immediate next step is likely to be practical: the university and employee will need to apply the agreed limits as new AI systems or work expectations arise.
Other employees and employers may watch for further decisions, but this approval alone does not determine their rights or obligations. Any broader legal guidance would come from future agency action, court decisions or additional workplace cases. For now, the confirmed development is a single university-approved accommodation that lets one employee perform his job without personally using AI.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that employees can refuse to use AI at work?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual workplace accommodation for David Durman. There was no lawsuit or court ruling, and the decision does not create legal precedent.
Can a Humanist belief qualify for a religious accommodation?
Federal employment law can cover sincerely held non-theistic beliefs, including some moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. Whether a particular belief and request qualify depends on the circumstances.
Does Durman have to avoid every AI system at work?
No. The reported approval excuses him from personally using AI, but may still require him to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that use it.
Can an employer deny a request to avoid AI?
An employer may deny a religious accommodation if it can establish undue hardship under the applicable legal standard. The outcome depends on the job’s essential functions, the proposed accommodation and its impact on the employer’s business.
Does the approval apply to other University of Kentucky employees?
The reported decision applies to Durman’s circumstances. It does not automatically grant the same accommodation to other employees, whose beliefs, duties and workplace effects would need to be assessed individually.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
