🔍 Read the full analysis: When An AI Refusal Meets Religious Accommodation Law on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get privacy and security gear 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, after finding the accommodation would not create an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent; the approved terms still allow some work-related exposure to AI systems.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools for his work, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent.
Durman, a Humanist who does not believe in a god, submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24, after AI tools were promoted for workplace use. His letter sought an exemption from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association, which helped him prepare the request.
The office approved the request on September 25, following a meeting with Durman and association staff in mid-September. 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 reported by Religion News Service, does not necessarily exclude Durman from meetings where AI is used or from submitting materials through systems that incorporate AI. The university said accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change.
The request came after a July 31 department meeting that promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes, Durman’s letter said. It also referred to suggestions to use commercial services such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools in development. Durman was not yet required to use AI, TechCrunch reported; he sought an accommodation in case recommendations later became a requirement.
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 accommodation could apply
The case shows how a workplace dispute over AI use can intersect with religious accommodation law in the United States. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires covered employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition, religious beliefs can include sincere moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a deity is not required.
That does not create a general right to refuse workplace technology. An employer can consider the actual duties of the role and the effects of an accommodation on its operations. The Kentucky university concluded that Durman could continue performing his essential work without personally using AI and that the arrangement would not unduly burden his department. A job in which AI tools are necessary to core tasks could lead to a different result.
The decision may offer a practical example for employers and workers considering similar requests, but its reach is limited. It does not establish that objections to AI automatically qualify as religious beliefs, nor does it require every employer to grant the same exemption. Each request turns on the employee’s beliefs, the job’s requirements and the proposed adjustment.
Products Worth Considering
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (12th Generation, 2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Jade
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
EcoFlow DELTA 3 Classic Portable Power Station, 1024Wh, 1800W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The request and its legal basis
Durman’s letter said he believes that human reasoning should be protected and described concerns about AI’s effects on work, the environment and creativity. He identified as a Humanist and argued that using AI conflicted with his beliefs. The university’s approval followed a meeting with him and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens. Huiskens described that meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.”
Federal employment law does not limit religious accommodation requests to people who belong to a theistic faith. The EEOC regulation cited in the reporting includes certain sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying an accommodation must show that it would cause “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” That legal test concerns the employer’s circumstances; it does not mean every requested adjustment must be accepted.
The case was made public between October 26 and 29 by the American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch. In June, Business Insider reported that software engineer Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist in North Carolina, had received an exemption from using AI. The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive one; that is the organization’s characterization, not a determination made by a court.
“It was a very collegial meeting.”
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, to Religion News Service
Limits of the approval
The full practical effect of the arrangement is not clear from the public accounts. The reported terms excuse Durman from personally using AI, but may still require participation in meetings where AI is active or the use of systems that process submitted materials. The university has said accommodations may be revisited if a job changes, but the public reporting does not specify how often that review will occur or how particular tools will be handled.
There has been no lawsuit or judicial ruling on Durman’s request. The university’s finding that the accommodation did not pose an undue burden applies to his department and role, as described in the reporting; it does not settle how another employer should respond. The claim that he is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption comes from the American Humanist Association, and has not been established as a legal or independently verified nationwide finding.
What employers and workers face
The immediate next step is whether Durman’s work or the university’s AI requirements change. The approval can be reviewed as his role evolves, according to the university’s account. No further hearing, court proceeding or formal policy change was announced in the reporting through October 29.
For other workers, the case points to an individual process rather than an automatic opt-out. Employers considering a request would need to examine the employee’s stated belief, the role’s essential functions and whether a workable accommodation would create undue hardship. Durman’s case may be cited in those discussions, but its outcome alone does not determine the answer for other workplaces.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI for his work, after finding the arrangement would not impose an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association.
Does the decision mean employees can refuse any AI tool?
No. The approval concerns one employee, one role and one accommodation. Employers can consider whether AI use is part of a job’s essential functions and whether an alternative would create undue hardship.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
Potentially. The EEOC’s definition of religion can include sincere moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Whether a specific belief qualifies depends on the circumstances.
Is this a court ruling or legal precedent?
No. The university approved an employee accommodation through its Office of Equal Opportunity. There was no lawsuit or court ruling, so the decision does not establish legal precedent.
Can Durman still encounter AI at work?
Yes, according to the reported terms. He may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that include AI, even though he is excused from personally using the tools.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
