🔍 Read the full analysis: The Legal Boundaries Of Refusing AI At Work For Religious Beliefs on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 at work because of his Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a legal precedent, and the university may review it as his job changes.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work because doing so conflicts with his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation under the university’s equal-opportunity process, not a court ruling establishing a broader legal right to refuse AI.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, requested the accommodation in a letter dated August 24, 2026. He asked to be excused 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, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him prepare the request.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested use of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools under development. He said AI use was not an essential function of his position. The AHA said the university found that granting the accommodation would pose “no undue burden” on his department.
The accommodation is limited: it excuses Durman from personally using AI, but the approval letter, as reported by Religion News Service, says he may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that use it. 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 may review accommodations 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
How the Approval Could Shape AI Policies
The case offers a concrete example of how religious-accommodation rules may apply to workplace AI, including when an employee’s belief system is non-theistic. It does not mean employees can automatically refuse any new technology: the university considered the duties of this particular job and whether the request would impose an undue hardship.
For employers introducing AI tools, the decision highlights the practical role of individualized review. A workable adjustment might allow an employee to complete the same task another way, as Durman offered to do with meeting notes. A job where AI use is an essential function could present different facts, and an employer’s response would depend on the law and the circumstances.
For workers, the approval shows that a person can ask for an accommodation before an AI tool becomes mandatory. It does not guarantee approval, establish a general right to opt out, or resolve how every AI-related conflict should be handled. The case also leaves open how employers will assess requests involving systems used by an entire team or embedded in everyday work processes.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Federal Religious Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally requires covered employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a workplace rule, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The law’s reach is broader than belief in a deity. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief’s sincerity and its role in the employee’s life matter; a personal preference or political view alone is not necessarily covered.
After Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with university officials in mid-September, the Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request on September 25. 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 question is not simply whether coworkers object or whether an adjustment is inconvenient; employers must consider the specific operational effects and possible alternatives.
Durman’s case was publicized by the AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch between October 26 and 29. The AHA says he is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation, a claim attributed to the organization rather than established by a court or government finding. 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.
““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 Kentucky Decision
The approval letter and public reporting do not establish a general rule for AI use at work. The decision applies to Durman’s role and circumstances, and no lawsuit or court judgment was involved. It is not yet clear how the university would respond if his duties changed so that AI became essential, or how it would assess a future request involving tools integrated into a required workflow.
Public information also does not spell out every operational detail, including how the accommodation applies across all systems or how often it will be reviewed. The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation is the group’s claim; the available reporting does not independently establish that no earlier comparable approval exists.
Review as Job Duties Change
The university may review Durman’s accommodation if his role or workplace requirements change. The immediate next step is therefore ongoing implementation: the department must allow him to perform his work without personally using AI while addressing any situations in which AI-supported systems are part of meetings or administrative processes.
Other employers and workers may look to the case as an example, but any request would need its own review. Employees can identify the belief-related conflict and propose a way to meet essential job duties; employers must assess the request and its actual operational effects under applicable law. No broader legal precedent has been set by the university’s decision.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI because of religious beliefs?
In the United States, an employee may request a religious accommodation under Title VII if a sincerely held belief conflicts with a workplace requirement. Approval is not automatic; the employer considers the job’s essential functions and whether the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Can Humanism qualify as a religion for workplace accommodation?
It can, depending on the facts. Federal employment rules can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that have the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Whether a particular request qualifies is assessed individually.
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university excused David Durman from personally using AI tools to do his work. The reported approval does not exempt him from every AI-related workplace process: he may still attend meetings involving AI or submit materials through systems that use it.
Does this decision create a legal precedent?
No. It was an accommodation approved through the University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity, not a court ruling. It does not guarantee that another employee’s request will be granted.
What does undue hardship mean in this situation?
Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, an employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business. The assessment depends on the specific workplace and the proposed adjustment.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
