🔍 Read the full analysis: What A Workplace AI Exemption Means For Religious Freedom 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 tools, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to refuse AI; the scope of the exemption is limited, and the university may review it as the job changes.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, saying the arrangement would allow him to continue performing his job without an undue burden on his department. The September 25 decision treats his Humanist beliefs as grounds for an individual religious accommodation under workplace law; it is not a court ruling and does not establish a general right for employees to refuse AI.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity for an accommodation in a letter dated August 24, 2026. He requested an exemption from personally using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He said AI use was not an essential function of his position and offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The American Humanist Association helped him prepare the request.
The university approved it on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials in mid-September. The approval does not remove him from every activity involving AI. As Religion News Service reported from the letter, he may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use the technology. The university said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change.
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 association said the office found “no undue burden” on Durman’s department. According to TechCrunch, Durman was not yet required to use AI: colleagues and leaders had recommended trying the tools, and he sought approval 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 the Exemption Applies at Work
The case illustrates how a workplace AI policy may intersect with Title VII’s religious accommodation rules. In the United States, covered employers generally must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a workplace requirement, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The law’s understanding of religion can include nontheistic beliefs; belief in a god is not required.
That does not mean an employee’s personal objection automatically overrides a work rule. The Kentucky decision concerned one employee and one job, where the university determined he could keep doing the essential work without personally using the tools. A role that depends on AI systems, or an accommodation that creates substantial costs or other qualifying burdens, could lead to a different result. The case offers a practical example, not a blanket exemption for workers who oppose AI.
For employers introducing AI, the decision points to the value of examining the work itself: which tasks are essential, what alternatives are workable, and whether an accommodation can be made without undue hardship. For employees, it shows that a request can be made before a tool becomes compulsory, but approval depends on the individual circumstances and applicable law.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Sony WH-1000XM6 Wireless Noise-Canceling Over-Ear Headphones, Blue, Bundle
Bose SoundLink Flex (2nd Gen) Portable Bluetooth Speaker
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Basis
Durman’s request followed a department meeting on July 31, 2026, where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. His letter also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI systems in development. He asked that the exemption cover current and future tools, while offering a non-AI way to complete the relevant work.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires religious accommodation unless it would cause undue hardship. Federal regulations define religion to include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Political beliefs and ordinary personal preferences do not qualify simply because someone holds them strongly.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that an employer relying on undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The source account also describes an earlier reported example: Business Insider said in June 2026 that Unitarian Universalist software engineer Erin Maus, in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May. The American Humanist Association calls Durman the first Humanist to receive one; that “first” description is the group’s claim, not an independently established legal finding.
““It was a very collegial meeting.””
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, to Religion News Service
The Limits of This Approval
The complete practical effect of the accommodation is not fully clear from the reported details. Durman is excused from personally using AI, but the approval reportedly still permits or requires participation in meetings where AI is used and the submission of materials through AI-enabled systems. The source material does not specify how those boundaries will be handled in every task or whether additional adjustments may be needed.
It is also not clear whether the university will later change Durman’s duties, revisit the approval, or impose a new AI requirement. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, but no review date or specific trigger was reported. The decision does not resolve how another employer should assess a different employee’s beliefs, job duties or proposed alternative.
The reported accounts describe an administrative accommodation, not a judicial ruling. No lawsuit or court decision is reported, and the association’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption has not been established as a legal precedent. This account is not legal advice; outcomes depend on the facts and applicable law.
How the Accommodation May Evolve
For now, Durman can continue his work under the approved arrangement, using non-AI methods for tasks covered by the exemption. The university may review the accommodation if his position changes or if new duties affect whether he can perform its essential functions without personally using AI.
For other workplaces, the next step is likely to be individual review rather than an automatic policy change. Employers considering a request would need to assess the belief, the job’s actual requirements and possible alternatives, then determine whether the proposed accommodation would cause undue hardship under the relevant legal standard. The Kentucky approval may inform those discussions, but it does not decide them in advance.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved an accommodation excusing David Durman from personally using AI to do his work. Reports say the approval does not necessarily exempt him from meetings where AI is used or from submitting materials through AI-enabled systems.
Can a nonbeliever request a religious workplace accommodation?
Yes. Federal workplace law can cover sincerely held nontheistic beliefs, including Humanist beliefs, when they meet the legal standard for religion. A personal preference or political view alone is not automatically covered.
Does the case give every employee a right to refuse AI?
No. This was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or general exemption. The result can depend on the employee’s beliefs, the essential duties of the job, available alternatives and whether accommodation would cause undue hardship.
What does undue hardship mean under the law?
After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business to rely on undue hardship. The assessment depends on the circumstances.
Could the University of Kentucky revisit the exemption?
Yes. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The reported accounts do not identify a review date or say whether Durman’s duties will change.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
