🔍 Read the full analysis: Religious Beliefs, AI Tools, And The Limits Of Workplace Accommodation 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 because of his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to refuse AI; the university said he can still perform his job’s essential functions.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision lets him continue performing his job without personally using AI, but it is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a general exemption for employees.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. According to his accommodation letter, a department meeting on July 31 promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes, and the university had also discussed commercial tools including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Durman wrote to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24, seeking an exemption from personally using AI, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems.
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting with Durman and American Humanist Association staff in mid-September. The association says 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 is limited. As reported by Religion News Service from the letter, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. Durman was not yet required to use AI when he applied; TechCrunch reported he sought a decision after colleagues and leaders recommended the tools, ahead of any possible 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 Narrow Opt-Out at an AI-Using Employer
The case shows that workplace AI policies can intersect with religious accommodation law, even when the employee does not believe in a god. Under federal law, an employer may need to adjust a work rule for a sincerely held belief, provided the adjustment does not create undue hardship. That does not make an employee’s objection an automatic veto: the employer can consider the work’s requirements and the practical effects of an accommodation.
The university’s decision matters because it illustrates a possible arrangement: an employee can avoid personally operating AI tools while continuing to work in an organization that uses them. Microsoft has described the university’s Microsoft 365 Copilot deployment as reaching more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure is Microsoft’s account of access, not evidence that every person uses Copilot or that Durman’s accommodation applies across the institution.
For employers, the case points to the value of considering individual requests and workable alternatives rather than assuming a single AI policy fits every employee. For workers, it shows that a request may be possible, but the outcome depends on the belief, the job and the effect on the employer. The approval itself does not establish how another employer, role or future dispute would be handled.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
DJI Mini 4K Fly More Combo
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Humanist Belief and Federal Job Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work requirement, unless the employer can show 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; Humanism can qualify when it functions as a comprehensive belief system. Personal preference or political views alone do not qualify as religion under that standard.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified the undue-hardship test: an employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Kentucky university considered whether Durman could still do the essential functions of his position without personally using AI. According to the account of the approval, it found that he could and that the arrangement would not unduly burden the department.
This was an administrative accommodation, not a lawsuit or judicial ruling, so it creates no legal precedent. In June 2026, Business Insider reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received an exemption from AI use. The American Humanist Association calls Durman the first Humanist to receive one; 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 cited by the American Humanist Association
How Far the Approval Extends
The full scope of the accommodation is not settled publicly beyond the terms reported from the letter. The university has indicated that Durman may still participate in meetings involving AI and use systems that incorporate it, while being excused from personally operating AI tools. The precise line between those activities, and how it would apply to new tools or assignments, is not clear from the available account.
It is also unknown whether the university will review the arrangement as Durman’s responsibilities or workplace systems change. The approval offers no ruling on how other employers must respond, and no court has tested the university’s reasoning in this case. The American Humanist Association’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation has not been independently established as a legal or nationwide record.
Review as Duties and Tools Change
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, so the arrangement could be reconsidered if Durman’s essential duties or the tools required for them shift. The available reporting does not identify a scheduled review date or say that the university plans to change the approval.
For now, the case remains an individual workplace decision. Any broader development would depend on further employer decisions, agency guidance or litigation; none is announced in the source reporting. Employees considering a similar request would need to explain the conflict between a work rule and a sincerely held belief, while employers would need to assess the job’s essential functions and whether an accommodation would create undue hardship.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved research administrator David Durman’s request not to personally use AI tools in his work because of his Humanist beliefs. The university said he could still perform his job’s essential functions.
Does the decision mean employees can refuse all workplace AI?
No. It is an individual accommodation, not a general exemption or court ruling. An employer may assess the employee’s duties, possible alternatives and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Federal workplace law can cover sincerely held ethical or moral beliefs that function with the strength of traditional religious beliefs. Belief in a god is not required, but personal preference alone does not qualify.
Can Durman still be around AI systems?
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 incorporate it. The exemption concerns his personal use of AI tools.
Does the approval set a legal precedent?
No. The university granted an accommodation without a lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not determine how another employer or a court would handle a similar request.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
