🔍 Read the full analysis: A Humanist’s Workplace AI Exemption And The Reach Of US Law 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 because of his Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent, and does not exempt him from every work activity involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation—not a court ruling—and permits him to keep performing his job without personally using AI, according to reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch and materials published by the American Humanist Association.
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 using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The university approved the request after a meeting with Durman and American Humanist Association staff in mid-September.
The approval has limits. According to the approval letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit material through systems that use AI. The university spokesperson told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” The university said accommodations may be reviewed if job duties change.
The university’s office found the accommodation posed “no undue burden on his department,” according to the American Humanist Association’s October 26 announcement. Durman was not yet required to use AI when he sought the exemption: TechCrunch reported that colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools, and that he wanted a decision in case use later became mandatory. The university’s approval did not resolve what another employer would have to do in a different job or workplace.
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 Could Apply
The case offers a practical example of how religious accommodation law may apply when a workplace introduces AI. Federal law does not give employees a general right to refuse a tool they dislike. But an employee may ask for an adjustment if using that tool conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief, and an employer must assess the request under the applicable legal standard.
For employers, the decision highlights the value of considering individual duties and workable alternatives, rather than assuming a single AI policy must apply identically to every worker. For employees, it shows that a request can be considered before a tool becomes a formal requirement. The outcome will depend on the employee’s circumstances, the belief and the effect of an accommodation on the employer’s operations.
Durman’s work was not found to require personal AI use, and the university said the accommodation did not create an undue burden. A worker whose essential duties depend on AI, or whose exemption would impose substantially higher costs on the business, could receive a different answer. The Kentucky approval does not establish that every objection to workplace AI qualifies for protection.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Legal Standard and Timeline
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs when they conflict with a work rule, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation, religious beliefs can include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a god is not required; the rule does not turn every political view or personal preference into a religious belief.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in Groff v. DeJoy in 2023. An employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The employer must consider alternatives; coworker resentment alone is not the test. Whether a particular belief is sincere and whether a proposed adjustment meets the legal standard depend on the specific facts.
At a July 31 department meeting, according to Durman’s letter, Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, alongside possible use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini and internal AI tools under development. Durman submitted his request August 24 and met with university officials in mid-September; the office approved it September 25. The case became public in reporting and an AHA announcement from October 26 to 29. The association calls Durman the first Humanist to receive such an exemption; that is the group’s claim. Business Insider had reported in June that Unitarian Universalist software engineer Erin Maus received an AI-use exemption 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 of the Kentucky Decision
The university’s decision is an internal accommodation, not a judicial ruling. No lawsuit was filed, and the approval does not set a binding precedent for other employers. The available reporting does not establish how the university would handle a later change in Durman’s duties or a request involving AI that is essential to a position.
It is also not clear whether Durman will have to use or interact with additional AI-enabled systems as the university changes its tools. The reported terms distinguish his personal use from some work activities involving AI, including meetings and systems used to submit materials. The precise application of those terms may depend on the task and any future review.
The American Humanist Association’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive an AI exemption is the organization’s characterization, not a finding by a court or government agency. Other reported cases show that similar requests have been made, but the available information does not establish how common such accommodations are.
Review as Duties Change
The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. For now, Durman’s approved arrangement allows him to avoid personally using AI while continuing to perform his position’s essential functions, according to the university’s statement to TechCrunch. No court case or further formal legal milestone was announced in the source reporting.
The practical next steps for other workers and employers will depend on future requests and how workplaces assign AI-related tasks. An employee seeking an accommodation would need to explain the conflict and discuss possible adjustments; an employer would have to evaluate the request and any effect on the business. The Kentucky case supplies an example, but not a universal rule for refusing AI at work.
Key Questions
Did the University of Kentucky ban AI use for David Durman?
No. The university approved an accommodation from Durman personally using AI to do his work. Reporting says he may still attend meetings that use AI and submit material through AI-enabled systems.
Does the decision mean any employee can refuse workplace AI?
No. The decision is specific to Durman’s request and job. Under Title VII, a covered employer must consider qualifying religious accommodation requests, but an accommodation may be denied if it would cause undue hardship under the legal standard.
Can Humanism qualify as a religion under US employment law?
A nontheistic belief system can qualify if it is sincerely held and functions as a religious belief under the law. The EEOC’s definition includes certain moral or ethical beliefs; belief in a god is not required.
Is the University of Kentucky decision a legal precedent?
No. It was an employer-approved accommodation, not a court ruling. It does not bind other employers or determine how a different request must be handled.
What could change the accommodation later?
The university said accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. The source reporting does not specify what would happen if Durman’s role came to require personal AI use or if the workplace’s tools changed.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
