🔍 Read the full analysis: The Law Behind A Humanist’s Exemption From AI At Work on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- 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 for an accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools. The decision applies to his workplace, not as a court ruling or precedent, and does not exempt him from every workplace system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, citing a sincerely held Humanist belief. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation—not a court ruling—and does not create a legal precedent for other employers.
Durman requested the accommodation in a letter dated August 24, after AI tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot were promoted for meeting notes at a July 31 department meeting. His letter asked to be excused from personally using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him prepare the request.
The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request on September 25, following a meeting with Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the accommodation would pose “no undue burden” on his department. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch the accommodation could be provided while Durman continued performing the essential functions of his position.
The exemption is limited. As reported by Religion News Service, the approval letter says Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university also said accommodations may be reviewed if job responsibilities change. Durman was not yet required to use AI when he sought approval; TechCrunch reported that colleagues and managers had encouraged him to try the tools and that he applied in case their 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 Fits His Role
The decision offers a concrete example of how an employer may handle a conflict between a worker’s sincerely held beliefs and workplace technology expectations. It does not establish that employees generally have a right to refuse AI, nor that opposition to a particular tool automatically qualifies as religious belief. The outcome rested on the university’s assessment of this employee’s circumstances and the requirements of his job.
According to the university spokesperson, Durman could receive the accommodation and still perform his role’s essential functions. The source material says he does his work without AI and that the university found no undue burden on his department. That distinction matters: a worker whose duties depend on AI systems could face a different assessment, depending on the job and available alternatives.
The case also shows that an employer’s adoption of AI does not necessarily mean every employee must personally use it in every task. Microsoft has described the university as having deployed Microsoft 365 Copilot to more than 70,000 students and employees. That deployment figure is Microsoft’s own description; it does not establish that every person uses Copilot or that it is required for every role.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Timeline and Legal Standard
Durman identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. Under federal employment law, however, a religious accommodation is not limited to people who belong to a theistic faith. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to employers with at least 15 employees and requires reasonable accommodation of a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a work requirement, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views” within its definition of religion. A non-theistic belief system may qualify; an ordinary personal preference or political view does not automatically do so. Whether a belief is sincerely held and religious in this legal sense depends on the circumstances, rather than a label alone.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified the undue-hardship standard: an employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Kentucky case itself involved no lawsuit, and the university’s approval is not a judicial determination of how that standard applies in other situations.
The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive this kind of accommodation. That is the organization’s characterization, not a finding established by a court or an exhaustive national record. Business Insider previously reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May 2026.
“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 This Individual Approval
The public material does not show that the university issued a broad policy allowing employees to opt out of AI. The approval applies to Durman’s request and job; how the university would respond to another employee, another belief, or a role that depends on AI is unknown.
The exact boundary between personally using AI and participating in workflows that use it may depend on the specific task. The reported approval letter allows for meetings involving AI and submissions through AI-enabled systems, but the full range of situations covered has not been detailed in the source material. The university says accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change.
It is also not clear whether Durman will ever be directed to use an AI tool, or whether the university will need to reassess the arrangement. The reported decision did not test the accommodation in court, so there is no judicial ruling here on the application of Title VII to AI use or Humanist objections to it.
How the Arrangement May Change
For now, Durman is excused from personally using AI while continuing to perform the essential functions of his research-administration role, according to the university’s explanation. If his duties or the tools required for them change, the university says the accommodation may be reviewed.
Employees who believe a workplace requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief can ask their employer for an accommodation. The Kentucky case does not guarantee approval: employers must assess the request and the job’s essential functions under the applicable legal standard. Whether other institutions adopt similar arrangements—or whether a future dispute brings the issue before a court—remains to be seen.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved an accommodation excusing David Durman from personally using AI tools to do his work. The reported approval does not excuse him from every meeting or system where AI is used.
Can a Humanist request a religious accommodation under federal law?
Yes, a non-theistic belief system may qualify under Title VII if it is sincerely held and religious in the legal sense. A personal preference or political view does not automatically qualify.
Does this decision mean employees can refuse AI at work?
No. This was an individual accommodation approved by one employer, not a court ruling or general right to refuse workplace AI. Other requests depend on the belief, job duties and circumstances.
What does undue hardship mean for an employer?
After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
Will Durman be exempt if his job changes?
The university said accommodations may be reviewed as job responsibilities change. The available reporting does not specify what changes would lead it to reconsider his arrangement.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
