🔍 Read the full analysis: Can You Refuse AI At Work? A Humanist Won A Religious Exemption. What US Law Covers, And Where It Stops 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 AI tools, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs and finding no undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or binding precedent, and it does not exempt him from every work activity involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved a workplace accommodation allowing research administrator David Durman, who identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god, to refrain from personally using AI tools in his job. The September 25 decision applies to Durman’s work and is an individual employer accommodation, not a court ruling establishing a broader legal right to refuse AI.
Durman submitted a written request on August 24 to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity. He asked to be excused from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter.
The university approved the request after a meeting with Durman and staff from the American Humanist Association in mid-September. The AHA said the office found that the accommodation created “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. According to the decision letter as reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change. Durman had not yet been required to use AI; TechCrunch reported that colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools, and he sought an accommodation ahead of a possible future 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 Exemption Fits the Job
The decision offers a concrete example of how a worker might ask an employer to accommodate a belief that conflicts with a workplace technology policy. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Federal guidance recognizes that religious belief can include certain ethical or moral 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 tool they dislike. An employer can examine whether the requested change would let the person perform the job’s essential functions and whether it would impose undue hardship. The Kentucky university’s reported finding that Durman could continue his work without personally using AI is specific to his duties and department. An employee whose role depends on operating AI systems could face a different assessment.
The case also comes as employers expand access to AI tools. Microsoft described the university as having achieved “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot, giving more than 70,000 students and employees access, according to Microsoft’s customer story. That figure describes access, not evidence that every person must use the tools or that all university work is AI-driven.
Products Worth Considering
Bose SoundLink Flex Bluetooth Speaker (2nd Gen) – Portable Outdoor Speaker with Hi‑Fi Audio, Waterproof and Dustproof, USB‑C, Up to 12 Hours
Anker SOLIX C300 Portable Power Station, 288Wh
EcoFlow Delta 3 Portable Power Station – 1024 Wh, 1800 W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Setting
Durman works as a research administrator helping researchers apply for grants. In his August letter, he said AI use was not an essential function of his position and requested an exemption covering current and future tools. The American Humanist Association helped him prepare the request. The organization said Durman is the first Humanist to receive this kind of exemption; that characterization is the AHA’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency.
US employment law’s definition of religion is broader than membership in a theistic faith. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when held with the strength of traditional religious views. Political views and personal preferences alone are not covered simply because an employee feels strongly about them. Whether a belief qualifies depends on the circumstances, rather than the label a worker gives it.
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after 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. The court also said coworker resentment or hostility toward an accommodation is not enough by itself. The Kentucky decision was made by the university’s equal opportunity office under its circumstances; no lawsuit or judicial ruling was involved.
““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 Decision
The approval does not establish how another employer, agency or court would handle a similar request. No court tested the accommodation, and the university has not publicly described a detailed process or analysis beyond the information reported by the AHA and news outlets. The exact boundary between avoiding personal use and participating in work that involves AI will depend on the university’s implementation and the duties at issue.
It is also unclear whether the university will review the accommodation if Durman’s responsibilities change, although it has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs evolve. The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an exemption is not independently established by this case. A separate report by Business Insider said Unitarian Universalist software engineer Erin Maus received an exemption in May 2026; that is a distinct case, not a legal precedent.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The immediate next step is for the university to apply the accommodation to Durman’s work while he continues performing his role. If his job duties or the technology requirements change, the university says it may review the arrangement. No hearing or appeal is scheduled because the matter was resolved internally rather than through litigation.
For other workers, the case points to an individualized process: explain the sincerely held belief and the work conflict, identify the specific adjustment requested, and discuss whether essential duties can still be done. Employers assessing a request must consider the job and potential alternatives rather than treating AI access as automatically mandatory or automatically optional. The Kentucky decision is an example, not a guarantee that another request will be approved.
Key Questions
Can a Humanist qualify for a religious accommodation under US employment law?
Potentially. Federal employment law can cover sincerely held non-theistic beliefs that play a role comparable to traditional religious beliefs. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the facts; identifying as a Humanist does not automatically resolve every request.
Does the University of Kentucky decision mean employees can refuse all AI?
No. The approval is specific to Durman’s job and circumstances. Reporting on the decision says he may still take part in meetings involving AI or submit work through AI-enabled systems.
Was the accommodation ordered by a court?
No. The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved it internally on September 25, 2026. There was no lawsuit, court judgment or binding precedent.
What can an employer consider when deciding whether to approve a request?
An employer can consider whether the accommodation allows the employee to perform the job’s essential functions and whether it would cause undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, undue hardship requires substantial increased costs in relation to the particular business.
Does this case provide legal advice for employees?
No. It reports one employer’s decision and does not determine how another request would be handled. Employees facing a workplace dispute may wish to consult an employment lawyer or the relevant civil-rights agency about their own circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
