🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Workplace AI Can Raise Questions About Religious Accommodation on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a 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, citing a sincerely held Humanist belief. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling, and its limited scope leaves open how other employers might handle similar requests as workplace AI use expands.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, requested the accommodation after AI tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot were promoted for meeting notes at a department meeting. In an August 24 letter to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, he asked to be excused from personally using AI or large language model tools, including transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. 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 after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff in mid-September. The AHA said the office found that the accommodation posed “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 amount to a blanket exemption from AI-related work. As Religion News Service reported, the approval letter says Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use it. The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. Durman had not yet been required to use AI, according to TechCrunch; he sought approval after colleagues and managers recommended trying the tools.
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 AI Policies Meet Accommodation Law
The case illustrates that an employer’s decision to adopt AI does not, by itself, settle whether every employee can be required to use it personally. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers must reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with workplace requirements unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
The legal definition of religion is broader than belief in a deity. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Nontheistic beliefs such as Humanism may qualify; a personal preference or political opinion does not automatically qualify. Whether a specific belief meets the standard depends on the circumstances.
An accommodation is an adjustment, not a general right to reject workplace technology. The employer considers the employee’s duties, the belief-based conflict and whether workable alternatives exist. Durman said he could perform his job without personally using AI, and the university determined the arrangement would not impose an undue burden. Workers whose essential duties depend on AI could face a different assessment.
The standard for undue hardship is also more demanding than simple inconvenience. In its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court said an employer denying a religious accommodation must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The ruling calls for considering the circumstances of the employer and the requested adjustment; coworkers’ disapproval alone is not enough.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From AI Recommendation to Approval
The sequence began on July 31, 2026, when a department meeting promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for taking meeting notes, according to Durman’s accommodation letter. He also cited suggested use of commercial systems such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools being developed.
Durman submitted his written request on August 24 with help from the AHA and met with the university’s equal-opportunity officials in mid-September. The office approved it on September 25. The AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported the case between October 26 and 29. No lawsuit was filed, and the approval establishes no binding legal precedent.
The case comes as the university has promoted broad access to AI. Microsoft described a “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot at the university, providing access to more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure is Microsoft’s description of its deployment, not an independent measure of how often people use the tool.
The AHA has said Durman is the first Humanist to receive this kind of exemption. That is the organization’s claim. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received a religious exemption from using AI in May, indicating that the Kentucky decision is not the only publicly reported workplace case involving an AI opt-out.
““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 Kentucky Decision
The university’s approval applies to Durman’s circumstances and job. The available reporting does not establish how the office would assess a comparable request from an employee whose core duties require AI, or how it would respond if the department’s work changed. The approval letter indicates accommodations may be reviewed as roles evolve.
It is also not clear how other employers will handle requests tied to AI, or how courts would assess a dispute if an employer denied one. The Kentucky decision involved no lawsuit and did not test the legal standard in court. Nor does a worker’s objection to AI automatically qualify as a religious belief: sincerity, the nature of the belief and the workplace impact all matter.
Employer Reviews and Future Requests
The immediate next step at Kentucky is continued implementation of the accommodation alongside Durman’s existing duties. The university may review it if those duties or workplace systems change, according to the approval letter as described by Religion News Service. No further hearing or court decision is scheduled in this case.
For employers, the case points to the need to consider requests individually rather than treating a general AI rollout as the end of the discussion. For employees, the facts show that a request can be made before personal use becomes mandatory, but approval depends on the belief asserted, the job’s essential functions and whether a workable adjustment can be made without undue hardship. The broader legal boundaries will become clearer only through further employer decisions or court cases.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that employees can refuse to use AI?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual workplace accommodation. There was no lawsuit or court ruling, and the decision does not create a legal precedent.
Can a Humanist belief qualify for a religious accommodation?
It may. US employment law can cover sincerely held nontheistic moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the facts; a personal preference alone is not enough.
What exactly can Durman avoid?
He is excused from personally using AI tools to do his work. Reporting on the approval says he may still take part in meetings where AI is used and 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 show that providing it would cause undue hardship under the applicable standard. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, that requires showing substantial increased costs in relation to the employer’s business, based on the circumstances.
Has anyone else received a reported workplace exemption from AI?
Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption in May. The AHA’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive one is the organization’s characterization, not a court finding.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
