🔍 Read the full analysis: How US Law Covers Employees Who Object To AI On Religious Grounds on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- 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, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision is a workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent, and does not exempt him from every workplace system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved a religious accommodation allowing research administrator David Durman to avoid personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, the employee and advocacy groups said. The September 25 decision recognizes his sincerely held Humanist beliefs, but it is an individual workplace accommodation—not a court ruling, and not a blanket exemption from AI systems used by colleagues or the university.
Durman requested the accommodation in an August 24 letter to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association. He asked to be excused from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems, whether already in use or adopted later. His work as a research administrator includes helping researchers apply for grants.
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, association staff and university officials in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the accommodation would pose “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. As described in the letter and reporting by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. He offered to take and share his own meeting notes instead of using AI-generated notes. The university said accommodations may be reviewed if 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
How Title VII Applies to AI Objections
The case illustrates how existing religious-discrimination law may apply to workplace AI policies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires covered employers—generally those with at least 15 employees—to reasonably accommodate a worker’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a job requirement, unless the employer can show undue hardship. The law does not create a general right to reject technology; each request depends on the belief, the job and the proposed accommodation.
Federal regulations define religion broadly enough to include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in God is not required, so a nontheistic Humanist belief can qualify. That does not mean every objection to AI is religious: personal preference and political views alone are not covered under the cited standard. An employee must explain a sincerely held belief that conflicts with a workplace rule.
The decision also matters to employers introducing AI into ordinary tasks. Durman’s request was approved because, according to the account of the decision, he could continue performing his essential duties without personally using the tools and the department would not face undue burden. A different job, a different requested adjustment or a greater operational impact could produce a different result. The case shows a possible route for addressing conflicts, not a guaranteed outcome for other workers.
Products Worth Considering
HP Sprocket Photo Booth Machine Instant Color Photo Printer with 10.1 Touchscreen, LED Ring Light, 250+ Frames, 3×4 ZINK Paper, QR Code Shar
Dell XPS 13 9350 Laptop, 13.4 FHD+ Display, Intel Ultra 7 256V, 16GB DDR5, 1TB SSD
Dell XPS 13 9350 AI Professional Laptop 13.4 120Hz FHD+ Display
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Kentucky Request and Its Limits
Durman’s letter traced his request to a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. He also referred to suggested commercial tools, including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI systems under development. At the time, he had not been required to use AI, TechCrunch reported; he sought approval in anticipation that recommendations could become a mandate.
Durman said in an AHA statement, “I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.” The letter, published by the association, connects his objection to AI use with his beliefs and concerns about its effects on work, the environment and human creativity. Those are his stated reasons, not findings that the university independently made about AI’s effects.
The university’s decision came from its Office of Equal Opportunity, not a judge. The AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported on it between October 26 and 29. The association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that is the organization’s claim. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May.
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Under that ruling, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Kentucky approval does not test that standard in court; the university agreed to the request rather than litigating it.
“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 accommodation does not establish how another employer must handle a similar request. No court has ruled on Durman’s case, and the university’s decision does not set a legal precedent. The public materials also do not spell out every practical boundary, including how the arrangement would apply to each future tool or to specific tasks that might change.
It remains unclear whether the university will face a situation in which Durman’s duties require personal use of AI, or how the office would assess a request if his role changes. The source material does not report a dispute over the accommodation or say that Durman has been disciplined for refusing AI. The university’s AI deployment figures come from Microsoft’s own customer account, not an independent audit.
The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive an AI-related accommodation is also an advocacy group’s claim, not a comprehensive count of comparable decisions. Other accommodations may not be public. The outcome for any employee will depend on the evidence and circumstances of that individual request.
How Employers May Handle Future Requests
The university said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change. For now, the reported arrangement lets Durman continue his work without personally using AI, while permitting some involvement in meetings or systems that use it. No lawsuit or further formal proceeding is identified in the reporting, and no later university review date has been announced.
For workers, the account suggests that a request should identify the sincerely held belief at issue, explain how a job rule conflicts with it and propose a workable adjustment. For employers, the legal question is not simply whether a company uses AI, but whether a particular accommodation would allow essential work to continue and whether refusing it would meet the undue-hardship standard. Those are general points from the law and reported case, not a prediction about any individual claim.
Further developments could include changes to Durman’s role, a review of the arrangement, or similar requests at other workplaces. Until a court considers a disputed case, the Kentucky decision remains an example of one employer’s accommodation—not a nationwide ruling on whether employees can refuse AI.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI for religious reasons?
An employee can request an accommodation under Title VII if a sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a workplace requirement. The employer must consider reasonable accommodation unless it can show undue hardship. Approval is not automatic, and the result depends on the job and request.
Can a Humanist belief count as religious under US employment law?
It can. Federal regulations include some nontheistic moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in God is not required, but a personal preference or political position alone does not qualify under that standard.
Does the Kentucky decision mean workers can opt out of all AI?
No. Durman was excused from personally using AI, but the reported terms may still require him to attend meetings that use AI or submit materials through AI-enabled systems. The decision applies to his circumstances and does not create a general opt-out right.
Was the accommodation decided by a court?
No. The University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request. There was no lawsuit or judicial ruling, so the decision does not establish a legal precedent.
What does an employer have to show to deny a religious accommodation?
Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. How that standard applies depends on the facts of the request.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
