🔍 Read the full analysis: The Limits Of US Law On Workplace AI And Religious Objections 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 workplace AI, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to refuse AI; its scope and outcome in other jobs will depend on the circumstances.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, finding that 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 not a court ruling and does not establish a general right for workers to reject workplace AI.
Durman, who identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god, sought an accommodation through the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity. His August 24 letter, published by the American Humanist Association, asked to be excused from personally using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself.
According to the account and documents reported by Religion News Service and TechCrunch, the request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman also cited suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal systems under development. He had not yet been ordered to use AI, TechCrunch reported; he sought approval in anticipation that recommendations could become requirements.
The approval is limited. Religion News Service, citing the letter, reported that Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. The university told TechCrunch that an accommodation could be provided while allowing him to perform the essential functions of his job. The university may review accommodations as job duties change.
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
A Personal Exemption, Not an AI Ban
The case illustrates how religious accommodation law can apply to objections to workplace technology, while also showing that an accommodation is not a blanket veto over an employer’s AI policy. The question is whether a worker’s sincerely held belief conflicts with a work requirement and whether the employer can make a reasonable adjustment without undue hardship.
For Durman, the university reportedly found that personal AI use was not essential to his research-administration role and that excusing it would not burden the department unduly. A worker whose core duties depend on AI could face a different assessment. Employers may need to consider alternatives, but the law does not require them to remove essential job functions or grant every requested arrangement.
The decision matters as organizations introduce AI into routine tasks such as meeting records, drafting and document review. It gives employees and employers a reported example of a negotiated opt-out, but it does not determine how courts or agencies would resolve a dispute. The facts of each job and accommodation request remain central.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (12th Generation, 2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Jade
Amazon Kindle Scribe Colorsoft 64GB (1st Generation)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Federal Accommodation Law Applies
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers, generally those with 15 or more employees, to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a workplace rule, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Federal regulations define religion broadly enough to include moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a deity is not required; personal preferences and political views alone are not treated as religious beliefs under that standard.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship test in its 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. Coworker resentment by itself is not enough, and employers must consider possible alternatives. Applying that standard is fact-specific; the Kentucky university’s approval does not show how a court would rule in another case.
Durman’s case is also not the only reported workplace AI exemption. Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The American Humanist Association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that distinction is the organization’s claim, not a finding established by a court.
“It was a very collegial meeting.”
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, to Religion News Service
Where the Accommodation’s Limits Lie
The university’s approval addresses Durman’s position and circumstances, not every use of AI on campus or in other workplaces. The public reporting does not establish how the university would handle a future change in his duties, whether it has adopted additional limits on AI use, or how often the arrangement will be reviewed. The reported letter allows some indirect exposure to AI systems, including meetings using AI and materials submitted through AI-enabled systems.
It is also unclear how employers would apply the same legal test to jobs where AI is integrated into essential tasks, or how a disputed request would fare before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or in court. The American Humanist Association’s description of Durman as the first Humanist with such an exemption is its own claim. No lawsuit or judicial decision tested the university’s reasoning.
How Employers and Workers Proceed
The next steps depend on how the university’s work and technology change. It has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, while the available reporting does not identify a scheduled review date. For now, Durman’s approval remains an individual arrangement rather than a precedent binding other employers.
Workers who believe an AI requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief can raise the conflict with their employer and request an accommodation; the legal outcome will depend on the belief, job duties and available alternatives. Employers considering a denial must assess the request under Title VII’s undue-hardship standard rather than rely only on workplace preference or generalized objections. Any later dispute, agency guidance or court ruling would clarify how these standards apply to AI-specific requests.
Key Questions
Did the University of Kentucky ban AI for Durman?
No. The university approved an accommodation excusing him from personally using AI. Reporting says he may still attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through AI-enabled systems.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Federal rules can include sincere moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the circumstances, and personal preference alone is not enough.
Does this decision give workers a legal right to refuse AI?
No. This was an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling. Other requests will depend on the employee’s belief, job requirements and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship under Title VII.
What does undue hardship mean for employers?
Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, an employer must show that granting an accommodation would cause substantial increased costs in relation to its particular business. The analysis depends on the specific request and workplace.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
