🔍 Read the full analysis: How To Understand Religious Exemptions For AI In The Workplace on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 because of his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent, and does not exempt him from every work process involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, according to the accommodation letter and reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch. The September 25 decision recognizes his sincerely held Humanist beliefs, but it is an individual workplace adjustment—not a court ruling or a broad exemption from workplace systems that use AI.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity for an accommodation on August 24. His letter sought an exemption 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 office approved the request after meeting with Durman and American Humanist Association staff in mid-September.
The approval is limited. According to the letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate 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 may be reviewed as jobs change.
The university found that allowing Durman to avoid personal use of AI would not create an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. TechCrunch reported that he had not yet been required to use AI; colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools, and he sought a decision in case use later became mandatory.
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 One Worker’s Exemption Was Limited
The case offers a concrete example of how a religious accommodation may apply as employers introduce AI tools: an employee can request an adjustment, but the result depends on the person’s beliefs, duties and workplace needs. The university’s decision turned on its finding that Durman could continue doing his job without personally using AI and that the adjustment would not impose an undue burden.
That does not mean any employee can refuse any AI system by calling the objection religious. Under U.S. employment law, employers assess whether a belief is sincerely held and religious in nature, whether it conflicts with a work requirement, and whether an accommodation can be made without undue hardship. A worker whose essential duties depend on AI could receive a different decision. The Kentucky approval does not settle how another employer, agency or court would handle a different request.
For employers, the case highlights the need to consider requests individually rather than assume that adopting a tool requires every worker to use it in the same way. For employees, it shows the value of explaining the belief, identifying the specific work practice that conflicts with it, and proposing a practical alternative. The decision is not legal advice, and its outcome is specific to the employee and employer involved.
Products Worth Considering
Trezor Safe 5 Crypto Hardware Wallet with Color Touchscreen, Black Graphite
Apple MacBook Pro 14 2021 with M1 Max, 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD, Silver
Apple MacBook Pro with M5 Max 18-core CPU 20-core GPU 14.2-inch Display 48GB Memory 2TB SSD Space Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Law Behind Nontheistic Beliefs
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers with 15 or more employees to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work rules, unless accommodation would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” A belief in a god is not required; Humanism can qualify when it functions as a religious belief in a person’s life. Political views and personal preferences alone are not covered.
In 2023, the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified the undue-hardship standard. An employer denying a request must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The standard calls for an assessment of the employer’s circumstances and consideration of possible alternatives; coworker resentment by itself is not enough.
The Kentucky request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested use of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools in development. Microsoft has described the university’s Copilot rollout as reaching more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure and description come from Microsoft, not an independent assessment of how often the tools are used.
““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
What the Approval Does Not Decide
The university’s decision is an individual accommodation, not a court judgment. It does not establish a binding rule for other employers or employees, and the available reports do not provide a detailed explanation of every factor the Office of Equal Opportunity weighed. The university may review the accommodation if Durman’s job changes.
It is also unclear how similar requests would be resolved where AI use is central to a role, where avoiding it shifts substantial work to colleagues, or where an employee objects to AI involvement in a system they do not personally operate. The reported approval permits Durman to avoid personally using AI; it does not appear to remove him from all meetings or processes involving AI.
The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption. That is the organization’s characterization, not a finding by a court or government agency. 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, indicating the Kentucky request was not the only reported workplace case.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The university can review Durman’s accommodation if his responsibilities or workplace tools change. No lawsuit or further legal proceeding is reported, so there is no scheduled court decision arising from this case. The immediate next step is practical: the university and employee will need to apply the approved arrangement to any relevant changes in duties or AI systems.
For other workers, the outcome will depend on the facts of each request and the employer’s assessment under Title VII. Employers considering a request may need to discuss the conflict, examine the employee’s essential duties and consider workable alternatives before deciding whether accommodation would create undue hardship. The Kentucky case provides an example of one such decision, but future disputes or agency guidance may clarify how the law applies as AI use spreads through workplaces.
Key Questions
Can a Humanist request a religious accommodation from workplace AI?
Yes. U.S. employment law does not require belief in a god for a belief system to qualify as religious. A Humanist may request an accommodation if the belief is sincerely held and conflicts with a workplace requirement. Whether an employer must grant a particular request depends on the circumstances.
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university excused David Durman from personally using AI tools in his work. Reports say he may still attend meetings that use AI and submit materials through systems that incorporate it.
Does this decision set a legal precedent?
No. It was an individual accommodation approved by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, not a court ruling. It does not bind other employers or determine how a court would decide a different case.
Can an employer deny a religious accommodation request?
An employer may deny a request if it cannot accommodate the belief without undue hardship under the applicable legal standard. The employer must assess the particular workplace and the proposed alternatives; the Kentucky decision does not mean every request to avoid AI must be approved.
What should an employee explain when asking to avoid AI?
An employee can identify the sincerely held belief, explain which required AI use conflicts with it, and suggest a practical way to perform the work without that use. The Kentucky case is a report about one accommodation, not legal advice for an individual situation.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
