🔍 Read the full analysis: Religious Exemptions At Work: What They May Mean For AI Use on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- 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 at work, citing a sincerely held Humanist belief. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or precedent, and it does not exempt him from every process involving AI.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, requested an exemption from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. In a letter dated August 24, he said that using the tools was not an essential function of his position and offered to take and share meeting notes himself. He and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with university officials in mid-September.
The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the accommodation on September 25. The American Humanist Association said the office found the request 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, as described by Religion News Service, does not necessarily remove Durman from meetings where AI is used or exempt him from submitting materials through systems that use AI.
Durman had not yet been required to use AI when he requested the accommodation. He said the request followed workplace discussion of tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot and commercial systems such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Microsoft has described the university as having deployed Microsoft 365 Copilot to more than 70,000 students and employees; that deployment figure is Microsoft’s account, not a measure of how often individual staff use the system.
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 Fits Into Accommodation Law
The case illustrates that a workplace AI policy can raise questions under existing religious-accommodation rules, rather than requiring a separate AI-specific law. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers must accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work requirement, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
Federal regulations define religion broadly enough to include sincere moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a god is not required, but a political view or personal preference alone does not qualify. The law does not mean workers have an automatic right to reject any technology: the employer considers the belief, job duties and effects of an accommodation. A role that depends on AI tools could present different facts from Durman’s position, where the university accepted that he could continue performing its essential functions without personally using them.
For employers, the practical question is whether a workable adjustment lets an employee do the job without imposing undue hardship. For workers, the case suggests that a request may be considered before a tool becomes mandatory—but the outcome depends on the individual circumstances and the employer’s assessment.
Products Worth Considering
Bose SoundLink Flex (2nd Gen) Portable Bluetooth Speaker
Sony WH-1000XM6 Wireless Noise-Canceling Over-Ear Headphones, Blue, Bundle
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Request to University Approval
According to Durman’s letter, AI note-taking was promoted at a department meeting on July 31, 2026. On August 24, he sent his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, with assistance from the American Humanist Association. He asked for the exemption to cover both then-current systems and tools adopted later. The two met with university officials in mid-September; Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.”
The office approved the request on September 25. The American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported the case between October 26 and October 29. The approval came from the university’s equal-opportunity office, not a judge. It does not establish how another employer—or a court—would handle a different employee’s request.
There has been another reported workplace exemption. Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May. The American Humanist Association calls Durman the first Humanist to receive one; that is the organization’s characterization, not a legal finding.
““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 Approved Exemption
The full boundaries of the accommodation and how it will work in every workplace situation are not clear from the public accounts. The reported approval allows Durman to avoid personally using AI, but may still require him to attend meetings where AI is used or submit information through AI-enabled systems. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change.
It is also unknown whether the university will face a future dispute over the arrangement or whether another employer would reach the same result. This was not a lawsuit, and no court decided whether the request met Title VII’s requirements. The American Humanist Association’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to obtain such an exemption is not independently established by the university’s decision.
Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer claiming undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. How that standard applies to a specific AI-related request depends on the job, the proposed adjustment and the employer’s circumstances.
Review as Duties and Tools Change
The university’s stated approach leaves room to review the accommodation if Durman’s position changes. If AI becomes part of a role’s essential functions, or if the existing arrangement no longer works, the university may need to reassess the request and possible alternatives. The available reporting does not identify a scheduled review date or a planned change to the exemption.
For now, the case is an example of one employer approving one employee’s request while allowing him to continue his work. Any broader effect will depend on how other employers handle similar requests and, if disputes arise, how regulators or courts apply federal law to the particular facts.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI at work for religious reasons?
An employee in the United States can request an accommodation if a sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a workplace rule. Under Title VII, a covered employer must consider the request unless accommodating it would cause undue hardship. Approval is not automatic.
Does the law cover Humanist beliefs?
Federal workplace rules can cover sincere non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a god is not required, but a personal preference or political position by itself is not enough.
What exactly did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university excused David Durman from personally using AI tools for his work. Public accounts indicate the accommodation may not exempt him from meetings where AI is used or from submitting materials through AI-enabled systems.
Does this decision set a precedent for other workers?
No. The university approved an individual request through its equal-opportunity office. There was no lawsuit or court ruling, so the decision does not establish a binding legal precedent.
What could happen if an employee’s job depends on AI?
The outcome could differ. Employers assess whether the employee can still perform the job’s essential functions and whether a proposed accommodation would cause undue hardship. The university said Durman could continue performing his essential duties without personally using AI.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
