🔍 Read the full analysis: Can A Religious Accommodation Let You Avoid AI On The Job? 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 to be excused from personally using AI tools, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or precedent, and does not exempt him from every meeting or system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved a request from research administrator David Durman to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, after he said doing so conflicted with his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling, and its terms do not let him avoid every workplace activity involving AI.
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 also offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The office approved the request on September 25, according to materials published by the American Humanist Association (AHA).
The request followed a department meeting on July 31 where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter. He also referred to suggestions that staff use commercial products such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools under development. TechCrunch reported that he had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in anticipation that recommendations could become a mandate.
The approval is limited. Religion News Service, citing the approval letter, reported that Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use 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 said accommodations can be reviewed as job duties change.
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 Opt-Out in an AI Workplace
The case illustrates how a workplace accommodation may apply when an employer introduces AI tools, but it does not establish a general right to refuse them. The university’s decision turned on the circumstances of one employee’s job, his stated beliefs and whether the accommodation would interfere with the department’s work. The AHA says the university found no undue burden; that description comes from the organization, which helped Durman prepare his request.
The decision may be relevant to employees and employers weighing AI adoption alongside existing workplace rights. For workers, it shows that a request can be made before a tool becomes compulsory. For employers, it highlights the need to consider specific duties and possible alternatives rather than treating every role as interchangeable. A role in which AI use is integral could present different facts from Durman’s grant-administration position, where he said he could do the work manually.
The university has described its adoption of Microsoft 365 Copilot broadly. In a customer story, Microsoft said the university achieved “100 percent deployment” of Copilot, with access for more than 70,000 students and employees. That is Microsoft’s description of deployment, not evidence that all those people were required to use the product or that every job depended on it.
Products Worth Considering
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact, Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Took Shape
Durman identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. In the August letter, he said his objection to AI use is tied to protecting human thought and reasoning. The AHA assisted him with the request. After a meeting with university officials in mid-September, the Office of Equal Opportunity approved it on September 25. The case was publicized by the AHA between October 26 and 29, followed by coverage from Religion News Service and TechCrunch.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers with at least 15 employees generally must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs when they conflict with a work rule, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Federal regulations include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views in the definition of religion. A belief in a god is not required, but a personal preference or political position alone is not automatically a protected religious belief.
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after 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. The Kentucky decision itself did not resolve any legal dispute: there was no lawsuit, and the approval does not create binding precedent.
The case is not the only reported request of this kind. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May. The AHA describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that “first” claim is the organization’s, and the available reporting does not establish a complete record of comparable cases.
“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
Limits of the Accommodation
The full practical scope of the arrangement is not clear from the public reporting. The approval letter, as described by Religion News Service, permits some participation in meetings involving AI and use of systems that incorporate it. The university has not publicly detailed how it will handle every future tool, workflow or change in Durman’s responsibilities.
It is also unclear whether other employers would grant similar requests. Title VII requires an individualized assessment, and the outcome can depend on whether a belief is sincerely held, what the job requires, and whether an accommodation would impose undue hardship. Durman’s approval does not guarantee that a different employee, employer or role would receive the same answer.
The public record describes a workplace accommodation rather than a formal legal finding. No court has ruled on the facts of Durman’s request, and the university’s decision does not settle how employment law applies to every use of generative AI or automated systems.
Review as Job Duties Change
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. That means Durman’s arrangement could be revisited if his role or the tools required for its essential functions change. The institution has not announced a timetable for such a review or described further steps in the case.
For now, the approved terms govern Durman’s reported situation: he is excused from personally using AI, while some AI-related meetings and systems may remain part of his work. Any broader legal guidance is likely to come from future workplace decisions, agency guidance or court cases rather than this approval alone.
Key Questions
Can an employee ask for a religious accommodation to avoid AI?
Yes. Under Title VII, covered employers generally must consider reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work rules, unless the employer can show undue hardship. A request is not an automatic exemption; it depends on the circumstances and the job.
Does a religious accommodation require belief in God?
No. Federal regulations can cover qualifying moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A nontheistic belief system such as Humanism may qualify, but personal preference or political views alone are not automatically protected.
What exactly did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university excused David Durman from personally using AI tools in his work. Reporting based on the approval letter says he may still need to attend meetings involving AI and use systems that incorporate it.
Does this decision create a legal precedent?
No. The university approved an individual accommodation, and there was no lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not bind other employers or guarantee that similar requests will be approved.
Can an employer deny an AI-related accommodation?
An employer may deny a request if it cannot reasonably accommodate the belief without undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, the employer must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Whether that standard is met depends on the specific facts.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
