🔍 Read the full analysis: Why A Humanist’s AI Exemption Matters For Workplace Rights on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI at work, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or precedent, and it does not exempt him from every workplace interaction with AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work because he said doing so conflicts with his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling, but it illustrates how U.S. workplace religious protections can apply to sincerely held non-theistic beliefs.
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 and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share his own meeting notes instead, according to his letter, published by the American Humanist Association.
The university approved the request after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the accommodation would create “no undue burden” on his department. 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 is limited. Reporting by Religion News Service on the approval letter says Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. The university has said accommodations can be reviewed as job duties change. Durman was not yet required to use AI when he applied; he sought approval after AI tools were recommended and in anticipation that their use might become 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 the Accommodation Applies
The case matters because it offers a concrete example of how a worker may raise a conflict between personal belief and an employer’s technology policy. It does not establish a general right to refuse AI, and it does not mean an employer must grant every such request. Rather, it shows that an employer may need to consider whether a particular adjustment is feasible when an employee presents a covered, sincerely held belief.
For employees, the distinction between personal use and exposure to AI systems is important. Durman’s approval addresses his own use of tools, not a blanket ban on AI in his workplace. For employers, the decision points toward a case-by-case process: identify the work that must be done, consider alternatives, and assess whether the adjustment would impose an undue hardship.
The practical result may differ sharply by role. The university said Durman could keep performing the essential functions of his research-administration job without personally using AI. A worker whose core duties depend on AI systems could face a different assessment. The Kentucky decision does not settle how another employer, agency or court would evaluate a similar request.
Products Worth Considering
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
EcoFlow DELTA 3 Classic Portable Power Station, 1024Wh, 1800W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Setting
According to Durman’s letter, a department meeting on July 31 promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes and discussed suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI projects. On August 24, Durman wrote to the university’s equal-opportunity office. He said AI use was not an essential function of his position and offered a manual alternative. He and AHA representatives met with officials in mid-September; approval followed on September 25.
U.S. employment law does not limit religion to belief in a deity. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Humanism can qualify in some circumstances, but political opinions and ordinary personal preferences are not automatically protected as religious beliefs.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act generally requires covered employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that an employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its business. The Kentucky approval applied to Durman’s circumstances; it was not a judicial ruling interpreting that standard.
The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation. That is the organization’s characterization, not a finding established by the university decision. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received a religious exemption from AI use in May.
““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 the Approval Leaves Open
The university has not publicly established a general policy for AI-related religious accommodation requests, and the available reporting does not detail every condition attached to Durman’s approval. It is also unclear how the university will review the arrangement if his role changes or if AI becomes part of a task the institution considers essential.
The decision does not show how another employer would handle a comparable request, or how a court would rule if an accommodation were denied and challenged. The AHA’s “first Humanist” description remains the group’s claim. The approval also does not mean that all concerns about AI qualify as religious beliefs under Title VII: the law’s test concerns the nature and sincerity of an individual’s belief and the practical effect of an accommodation.
How Workplace Policies May Respond
The immediate next step is for the university to apply the approved arrangement as Durman’s duties and workplace tools evolve. The institution has said accommodations can be reviewed when jobs change, but it has not announced a broader AI exemption policy.
Other employers introducing AI may receive similar requests and will need to assess them individually under applicable law. That could involve discussing the employee’s beliefs, identifying which duties require AI, and considering workable alternatives without removing essential job functions. Whether those discussions lead to accommodations, denials or legal disputes remains to be seen; the Kentucky decision itself requires no other employer to reach the same result.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools for his work. The approval does not amount to a general ban on AI in his workplace.
Can a nonbeliever request a religious accommodation under U.S. law?
Potentially. EEOC rules recognize that sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs may qualify even without belief in a deity. Whether a specific belief and requested adjustment meet the legal standard depends on the circumstances.
Does this decision give every employee the right to refuse AI?
No. This was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to opt out. The employer may consider the belief, the job’s essential functions and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Can Durman still encounter AI at work?
Yes. Reporting on the approval letter says he may still have to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use it. The accommodation covers his personal use, not every interaction with AI.
What happens if AI becomes essential to his job?
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. It has not publicly explained how it would handle a situation in which AI became necessary for a task considered essential to Durman’s role.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
