🔍 Read the full analysis: What The Law Says When Faith Or Belief Meets AI At Work 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 at work because of his Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a precedent, and its scope does not amount to a blanket exemption from AI-related workplace systems.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools in his job, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, but it illustrates how U.S. religious-discrimination law can apply when an employee’s belief conflicts with a workplace AI policy.
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 or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him prepare the request, says the university found the accommodation would pose “no undue burden” on his department.
The approval is limited. As Religion News Service reported from the letter, Durman may still need to attend 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 also said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change.
The reporting says Durman had not yet been required to use AI when he sought the accommodation. Colleagues and managers had recommended the tools, and he made the request ahead of any potential mandate. The university had promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter. Microsoft separately describes more than 70,000 students and employees as having access to Microsoft 365 Copilot at the university; that figure is the company’s account of deployment, not a measure of how many people use it.
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 Rules Meet Belief
The case shows that an employer’s adoption of AI does not automatically settle whether every employee must personally use it. Under federal law, employers may need to consider an adjustment when a job requirement conflicts with a worker’s sincerely held religious belief. The practical question is whether a workable accommodation can preserve the job’s essential functions without imposing the legally defined undue hardship.
For employees, the decision is not a general right to reject any technology they dislike. A request must rest on a sincerely held belief that qualifies under the law, and the employer can examine the duties of the role and the effects of possible alternatives. For employers, the case underscores the value of considering individual requests rather than treating an AI rollout as an all-or-nothing rule.
Durman’s position as a research administrator may matter: he said he could perform his work without personally using AI, and the university accepted that arrangement. A role built around AI tools could present different facts. The Kentucky decision does not resolve how another employer, agency or court would assess those circumstances.
Products Worth Considering
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
DJI Mic 3 Wireless Microphone System (2 Transmitters, 1 Receiver, Charging Case)
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact, Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Kentucky Request and Approval
According to Durman’s accommodation letter, a July 31, 2026, department meeting promoted Copilot for meeting notes and discussed commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, alongside internal AI systems in development. On August 24, Durman submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity. He and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with office officials in mid-September. The office approved the request on September 25, and the AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported the case publicly from October 26 to 29.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation says religion can include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Political views and personal preferences, on their own, are not covered by that definition.
In 2023, the Supreme Court’s 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 law calls for an individualized assessment, not an automatic exemption whenever an employee objects to a tool.
““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 Stops
The public account does not establish how the university will apply the arrangement to every future AI system, task or change in Durman’s job. The approval letter, as described by Religion News Service, leaves room for participation in meetings using AI and for work through AI-enabled systems, so the exact boundary depends on how those tools are used and what the job requires.
It is also unclear whether the university will receive similar requests or how other employers would respond. The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation, but that is the organization’s claim, not a finding established by a court or a complete record of all workplace accommodations. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May.
No lawsuit was filed in Durman’s case, and no judge ruled on whether the university was legally required to grant the request. The decision therefore does not establish a binding precedent or guarantee that another employee’s request will be approved.
Future Requests and Job Duties
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. Any future review could turn on whether Durman can still perform the essential functions of his position and whether the existing alternative remains workable. The public materials do not specify a review date or announce a broader university policy exempting employees from AI use.
Employees considering a similar request would need to explain the belief-based conflict and discuss possible ways to meet work requirements; employers would need to assess the particular job and the costs and effects of available accommodations. Whether a request is legally required to be granted will depend on its facts, not solely on the fact that an employer uses AI.
Key Questions
Did a court rule that employees can refuse to use AI?
No. The University of Kentucky approved one employee’s accommodation; there was no lawsuit or court ruling, so the decision does not establish a legal precedent.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Under the EEOC’s definition, religion can include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a god is not required. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the circumstances.
Does Durman have to avoid every AI system at work?
No. The reported approval excuses him from personally using AI, but it may still require him to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through AI-enabled systems. The public account does not spell out every application of the arrangement.
Can an employer deny a request to avoid AI?
An employer may deny an accommodation if it cannot reasonably accommodate the belief without undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, that requires showing substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the particular business. The outcome depends on the job and the request.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
