🔍 Read the full analysis: A Humanist Won A Religious Exemption. What It Means For AI At Work 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 for a religious accommodation from personally using AI tools, citing his Humanist beliefs. The decision applies to his job, does not set a legal 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, accepting his Humanist beliefs as grounds for a religious accommodation. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace arrangement, not a court ruling or a legal precedent, and its scope does not cover every interaction with AI systems.
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 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 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter.
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials. The AHA said the office found the accommodation posed “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 letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings that use AI or submit materials through systems that use it. The university also said accommodations can be reviewed as job duties change. TechCrunch reported that Durman was not yet required to use AI; he sought an accommodation after colleagues and managers recommended trying the tools, 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 Applies at Work
The case offers a specific example of how an employer may handle a religious accommodation request as AI tools spread through ordinary workplace tasks. It does not give employees a general right to refuse AI. The question is whether a worker has a qualifying, sincerely held belief that conflicts with a work requirement, and whether the employer can accommodate that belief without undue hardship while the employee continues performing essential job functions.
For Durman, the university apparently concluded that he could do his work without personally using AI. That assessment may differ for a role where AI use is central to the job. The case also distinguishes personal use of AI from being exposed to AI-enabled processes: the reported approval allows some participation in meetings or systems that use the technology.
Products Worth Considering
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact, Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
DJI Mic 3 Wireless Microphone System (2 Transmitters, 1 Receiver, Charging Case)
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Humanism Under Federal Job Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers—generally those with 15 or more employees—to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a deity is not required, but a personal preference or political position alone does not qualify.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy set the undue-hardship standard at substantial increased costs in relation to the employer’s particular business. Employers considering a request must evaluate the circumstances and possible alternatives. The Kentucky decision, however, was an employer’s accommodation determination, not a court’s interpretation of how the law applies to AI.
The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption. That is the organization’s claim. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received a religious exemption from using AI in May. The source accounts describe these as separate workplace accommodations.
““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 full assessment and the detailed reasoning behind its approval have not been publicly established in the reported material. It is also unclear whether Durman’s duties or the university’s AI requirements will change in ways that lead officials to review the arrangement. The university says accommodations may be revisited as jobs change.
No court has ruled on Durman’s request, and the decision does not establish how another employer must respond. An employee’s eligibility and an employer’s obligations depend on the facts of each case, including the belief asserted, the duties involved and the available alternatives. The reported source material does not establish that all AI-related tasks can be declined under religious accommodation law.
Possible Reviews as Duties Change
For now, the university’s approval allows Durman to continue performing his role without personally using the covered AI tools. The university may review the accommodation if his job changes, and the available reporting does not identify a scheduled review date or a new AI mandate for his position.
Employers and workers facing similar requests will have to address them individually under existing accommodation procedures. Any broader legal guidance would depend on future agency guidance or court cases; no such ruling emerged from this university decision.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools in his work, based on his Humanist beliefs. The university said he could still perform the essential functions of his position.
Does the decision mean employees can refuse all workplace AI?
No. It is an individual accommodation, not a general right to opt out. A request would be assessed under the facts of the employee’s job, the belief asserted and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Can Humanism qualify as a religion for a workplace accommodation?
Federal employment law’s definition of religion can include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required. Whether a particular request qualifies depends on its circumstances.
Does Durman’s accommodation cover AI used by other people?
Not entirely. The reported approval excuses him from personal use, but the letter indicates he may still attend meetings that use AI or submit materials through AI-enabled systems.
Is this a legal precedent?
No. The university approved a workplace accommodation without a lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not bind other employers or determine how courts would resolve a similar dispute.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
