🔍 Read the full analysis: Could Your Beliefs Qualify You To Refuse AI At Work? 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 at work, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs and finding no undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a precedent requiring employers to grant similar requests.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, after accepting that his Humanist beliefs conflict with using them and finding no undue burden on his department. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a precedent establishing that employees generally can refuse workplace AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In a letter dated August 24, he asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity to exempt 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 American Humanist Association, which helped with his request, says the office approved it on September 25 after a meeting with Durman and association staff in mid-September.
The approval is limited. According to the letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” The university also says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting that promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested use of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools being developed. TechCrunch reported that he had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation after tools were recommended, 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 an AI Opt-Out Could Be Granted
The case illustrates how US religious-accommodation rules can apply when a workplace practice conflicts with a sincerely held belief, including a nontheistic belief system. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires covered employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs 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. Belief in a god is not required.
That does not give employees a general right to reject workplace technology. An employer considers the person’s beliefs, the requirements of the job and whether a workable adjustment would impose undue hardship. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy said an employer claiming undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. A role in which AI use is essential could produce a different outcome from Durman’s position, where the university found he could perform his work without personally using the tools.
For employers introducing AI, the decision is a reminder that rollout policies may intersect with existing accommodation duties. For workers, it shows that they may ask for an adjustment, but not that every objection will qualify or be accepted. The accommodation applies to one employee and one workplace assessment; its terms cannot be assumed to carry over to another job or employer.
Products Worth Considering
DJI Osmo Pocket 3 Vlogging Camera with 1-Inch CMOS Sensor and 4K Video
LG UltraGear 27-Inch QHD OLED Gaming Monitor, 240Hz, 0.03ms, G-SYNC Compatible, FreeSync Premium Pro, HDMI 2.1
DJI Mic 3 Wireless Microphone System (2 Transmitters, 1 Receiver, Charging Case)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Setting
Durman identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. In a statement reported by the American Humanist Association, he said, “I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.” The association’s account also refers to his concerns about AI’s effects on jobs, the environment and human creativity. The legal question was not whether all criticism of AI is religious, but whether Durman’s own beliefs met the standard for an accommodation and whether the university could accommodate him without undue hardship.
Title VII generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with a work rule, unless the employer can establish undue hardship. The EEOC’s regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1, includes qualifying moral or ethical beliefs. Political views and personal preferences, by themselves, are not covered simply because someone holds them strongly.
The Kentucky decision was not the only reported workplace AI exemption. Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The American Humanist Association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that distinction is the organization’s claim, not a finding made by a court. There was no lawsuit in Durman’s case.
“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 approval does not establish how another employer would assess a similar request. The decision concerns Durman’s stated beliefs, his duties and the university’s assessment of its department; no court tested that assessment. The full effects of any future changes to his role or the university’s tools also remain unclear. The university says accommodations may be reviewed when jobs change.
It is also not clear whether Durman will later face a requirement to use AI or how the accommodation would apply to specific tools as they are introduced. His request included systems adopted in the future, but the reported approval permits some participation in meetings using AI and requires him to submit materials through AI-enabled systems in certain circumstances. The exact boundary between personal use and incidental exposure will depend on how those arrangements work in practice.
Finally, the American Humanist Association’s description of Durman as the first Humanist granted an AI-related accommodation has not been independently established as a legal or nationwide finding. The reported earlier case involving Maus underscores that other workplace exemptions have been reported, but the available accounts do not establish that the circumstances or legal reasoning were identical.
How the Accommodation May Evolve
The immediate next step is practical: Durman and the university will apply the accommodation as his duties and workplace systems develop. The university says it may review accommodations when job responsibilities change. If a future tool becomes part of a task the university regards as essential, the parties may need to discuss whether another adjustment can preserve the job’s essential functions without creating undue hardship.
Other employees considering a similar request would need to raise it with their employer and explain the conflict between a work requirement and their sincerely held belief. Employers would need to consider the individual circumstances and possible alternatives rather than treating this approval as an automatic rule for all workers. No further court hearing or formal legal ruling is part of Durman’s case as reported.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI at work for religious reasons?
An employee may request an accommodation under Title VII if a work rule conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Approval is not automatic: the employer must consider the job’s essential functions and whether accommodating the request would cause undue hardship.
Does a religious accommodation require belief in God?
No. The EEOC’s definition can include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. The University of Kentucky accepted Durman’s Humanist beliefs for this accommodation.
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It excused Durman from personally using AI tools to do his work. The reported terms still allow some involvement in meetings that use AI and require him to submit materials through systems that use it.
Does this decision mean every worker can opt out of AI?
No. It was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or general exemption. Another request would be assessed based on the employee’s beliefs, job duties and the effects on the employer’s business.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
