🔍 Read the full analysis: Refusing AI At Work: A Humanist’s Case And Its Legal Limits 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 for an accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools. The decision applies to his job and is not a court ruling or legal precedent; federal law may cover sincerely held nontheistic beliefs, subject to limits including undue hardship.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, granting an accommodation based on his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace adjustment, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent for other employees.
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, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association, which assisted with his request.
The university approved the request after a meeting between Durman, association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials in mid-September. The association said the university found the accommodation would pose “no undue burden” on Durman’s department. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that an accommodation could be provided while allowing him to perform the essential functions of his position.
The approval is narrower than a blanket exemption from AI-related workplace activity. According to the approval letter, as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university also said accommodations may 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 Exemption, Not a Ban
The case shows how a dispute over workplace technology can raise questions under religious-accommodation law, even when an employee does not believe in a deity. Under federal law, employers covered by Title VII must accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would create undue hardship. The definition of religion can include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views.
That does not give workers a general right to reject any tool they dislike. The accommodation depends on the employee’s beliefs, the duties of the position and the employer’s ability to make an adjustment. Durman said he already performs his work without AI, and the university determined he could continue doing so. An employee whose core duties depend on AI could face a different outcome.
For employers introducing AI systems, the decision is a reminder that a workplace rollout may intersect with existing obligations to consider individual accommodation requests. For employees, it illustrates that asking for an accommodation is different from receiving an automatic exemption: the employer evaluates the request and the practical effect on the job.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Developed
Durman’s letter says AI use was discussed at a department meeting on July 31, including Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes and suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. According to TechCrunch, Durman had not yet been required to use AI; colleagues and leaders had recommended trying the tools, and he sought an accommodation in anticipation of possible future requirements.
His request followed a meeting with the university in mid-September and was approved on September 25. The American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported the case between October 26 and 29. Microsoft has described the university as having deployed Microsoft 365 Copilot to more than 70,000 students and employees; that figure is Microsoft’s account of the rollout, not a measure of how many people actively use it.
The federal framework is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to employers with at least 15 employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations include moral or ethical beliefs sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. In 2023, the Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy decision clarified that an employer claiming undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
This is not the only reported workplace request involving AI. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received a religious exemption from AI use in May. The Humanist association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that characterization comes from the organization, and the Kentucky approval itself does not settle how other employers or courts must handle similar cases.
““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
Where the Exemption’s Limits Lie
The university’s approval applies to Durman’s circumstances. No court has ruled on his request, and the decision does not create a binding test for other employers. The available reporting does not detail every operational condition in the university’s approval or how it will handle specific AI systems as they are introduced.
It is also not clear whether the university will review the accommodation, or change its terms, as Durman’s responsibilities or workplace tools change. The approval letter reportedly allows review as job duties change. Whether another employee’s beliefs qualify, or whether a requested adjustment would impose undue hardship, would depend on the facts of that employee’s case.
Title VII does not cover every objection to AI. Personal preference or political opposition alone is not necessarily a protected religious belief. The legal question turns on whether the belief is sincerely held and religious in the law’s broad sense, along with whether an accommodation can be made without the required showing of undue hardship.
Future Duties Could Prompt Review
The university’s accommodation remains in place under the terms reported so far, with the possibility of review if Durman’s job changes. No lawsuit or further legal proceeding is described in the source material. The next practical test would arise if the university adopts a new AI requirement that affects his duties or if the scope of his role shifts.
Employers and workers considering similar requests will need to assess the particular job, the belief asserted and possible adjustments rather than assume the Kentucky decision answers every case. Further reporting may clarify how the university applies the accommodation as its AI systems and workplace policies develop.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved an accommodation excusing David Durman from personally using AI to perform his work. The reported terms do not exempt him from every meeting or process involving AI.
Does the decision mean every employee can refuse workplace AI?
No. It is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or general right to opt out. A request would be assessed based on the employee’s beliefs, job duties and whether an adjustment would create undue hardship.
Can a nonreligious person seek a religious accommodation under federal law?
Potentially. Federal workplace rules can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that function with the strength of traditional religious beliefs. Belief in a god is not required, but personal preference or political views alone do not automatically qualify.
What does ‘undue hardship’ mean in this setting?
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 particular business. The assessment depends on the specific circumstances.
Is the Kentucky decision a legal precedent?
No. The university approved the request without a lawsuit or court decision. Its action does not bind other employers or courts.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
