🔍 Read the full analysis: Can You Refuse AI At Work? Religious Exemptions And US Law on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get movie nights 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, finding that the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a precedent, and it does not exempt him from every workplace system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial-intelligence tools at work, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision applies to one employee; it was an internal accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent for other workers.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. 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. The American Humanist Association helped him prepare the request, according to the organization.
The university approved it after a meeting in mid-September. The accommodation is limited: reporting by Religion News Service says 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 approval letter, as reported by Religion News Service, also indicates the university may review accommodations as jobs change.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter. He also cited suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, along with internal tools being developed. The reporting says Durman was not yet required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in case recommendations became a requirement. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself.
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
When AI Use Conflicts With Belief
The decision illustrates how existing religious-accommodation rules may apply to workplace AI policies. Under Title VII, covered employers generally must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a workplace requirement, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Federal regulations define religion broadly enough to include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a deity is not required.
That does not give employees a blanket right to reject any technology they dislike. The question is whether the belief is sincerely held and religious within the law, whether it conflicts with a job requirement, and whether an accommodation can be made without undue hardship. The details of the role matter: the university reportedly found Durman could perform his essential duties without personally using AI. A worker whose core duties depend on AI could face a different outcome.
For employers adopting AI, the case shows the practical importance of considering individual requests and workable alternatives, rather than treating a new tool as automatically mandatory for every employee. For workers, it shows that they can ask for an accommodation, but approval depends on the facts and applicable law—not simply on personal opposition to AI.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
Ninja Hot & Iced XL Coffee Maker with Rapid Cold Brew, Black, CM371
Vitamix Propel Series 510 Professional-Grade Blender, 3 Programs, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Setting
Durman’s letter asked to be excused from personally using AI tools already in place and tools the university might adopt later. He said using AI was not an essential function of his position and offered to complete tasks such as note-taking himself. According to the American Humanist Association, the university found the arrangement posed “no undue burden on his department.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to employers with at least 15 employees and requires religious accommodation unless it would cause undue hardship. In its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court said an employer claiming undue hardship must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Employers must assess the circumstances and consider possible accommodations; coworker dislike alone is not the legal test.
The Kentucky case was made public by the American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch between October 26 and 29. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received an exemption from using AI in May. The AHA describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that characterization is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency.
““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 Kentucky Approval
The university’s decision applies to Durman’s circumstances and job; no court has ruled on the case, and the approval does not bind other employers. The available reporting does not establish how the university would assess a future change in Durman’s duties or a new AI system. The approval letter reportedly allows the accommodation to be reviewed as jobs change.
It is also unclear how other employers would evaluate similar requests, particularly where AI use is closely tied to essential job duties or an alternative would involve substantial cost or disruption. A sincerely held personal or political objection does not automatically qualify as a religious belief under Title VII. Whether a particular belief and proposed adjustment are covered depends on the facts and the legal process.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The next developments will depend on how employers respond when workers ask for adjustments to AI-related duties. Employers considering such requests would need to assess the employee’s stated belief, the specific job requirement, possible alternatives and any claimed hardship under the applicable law. The Kentucky university’s approval letter reportedly allows review if the work changes.
Durman’s accommodation remains an individual workplace decision, and the source reporting does not identify a lawsuit or further formal proceeding. Other employees can request accommodations, but the result is not guaranteed: each case depends on the employer, the job’s essential functions and the circumstances. This account is general reporting, not legal advice.
Key Questions
Can an employee in the United States refuse to use AI at work for religious reasons?
An employee can request a religious accommodation under Title VII if a workplace requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. The employer must consider the request unless accommodating it would cause undue hardship. Approval depends on the specific job and circumstances; it is not an automatic right to refuse every AI tool.
Can a Humanist or atheist qualify for a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Federal regulations recognize that religious beliefs can be nontheistic and can include certain sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs comparable in strength to traditional religious views. A person’s label alone does not decide whether a particular belief is covered.
What did the University of Kentucky approve for David Durman?
The university approved an accommodation excusing Durman from personally using AI tools for his work. Reports say the approval does not necessarily exempt him from attending meetings that use AI or submitting materials through systems that include it.
Does the Kentucky decision set a precedent for other employers?
No. It was an internal accommodation for one employee, not a court ruling. Other employers must evaluate requests under the law and the particular facts of each workplace.
What does undue hardship mean for religious accommodations?
Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying an accommodation on that basis must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The assessment depends on the circumstances and should account for possible alternatives.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
