🔍 Read the full analysis: Can Humanist Beliefs Support An Exemption From Workplace AI? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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, and it 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 his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or binding legal precedent, and its scope does not amount to a blanket exemption from workplace systems that use AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In a letter submitted August 24 to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, he asked to be excused 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. According to the American Humanist Association, which helped him prepare the request, the university approved it after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff in mid-September.
The approval is limited to his personal use of AI. Religion News Service reported that the approval letter leaves open the possibility that Durman may need to participate in meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. 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 university said accommodations may be reviewed if job duties change.
The case became public through reporting and statements from the AHA between October 26 and 29. Durman was not yet required to use AI, TechCrunch reported; he sought an accommodation after AI tools were recommended and before any potential mandate. The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity found, according to the AHA, that the arrangement posed “no undue burden on his department.”
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 Is Limited
The decision shows how an employee may ask for a religious accommodation when a workplace practice conflicts with a sincerely held belief, even when that belief is nontheistic. Under federal employment law, the relevant question is not simply whether a worker objects to a new technology. Employers consider whether the belief qualifies for protection, what the job requires and whether an accommodation would create undue hardship.
For employers introducing AI, the case highlights the difference between access to a tool and a requirement to use it. The university reportedly found that Durman could still carry out his essential duties without personally using AI. A worker whose core responsibilities depend on AI could face a different assessment. The approval does not establish that employees generally have a right to refuse workplace AI, nor does it decide how another employer must respond.
For employees, the reported outcome also points to the importance of a specific request and workable alternatives. Durman proposed doing his meeting notes himself, rather than asking to be excused from all work involving AI. Whether a similar proposal is reasonable will depend on the particular role, the employer’s operations and the facts of any individual request.
Products Worth Considering
Dell 34-Inch S3425DW Curved WQHD USB-C Monitor
HP Sprocket Panorama Portable Color Photo and Label Printer
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Federal Rules and Earlier Requests
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs when those beliefs conflict with workplace rules, unless the employer can show 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” in its definition of religion. A belief in God is not required, though a personal preference or political view does not automatically qualify.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business; coworker displeasure alone is not enough. Employers must consider possible alternatives. Whether that standard is met depends on the circumstances, rather than on a general rule about AI.
Durman’s request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to his letter. He also cited suggested use of commercial systems including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools in development. In June 2026, Business Insider reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI. The AHA calls Durman the first Humanist to receive one; that is the organization’s characterization, not an independently established legal milestone.
““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
Where the Accommodation Stops
The public reporting does not establish how the university will handle every future situation involving AI, including changes to Durman’s role or new tools added to existing systems. The approval letter, as described by Religion News Service, allows for participation in some AI-enabled meetings and use of systems that may include AI; the precise day-to-day boundaries are not fully detailed in the available account.
It is also unclear whether the university’s decision will prompt other employees to seek similar accommodations or how other employers would evaluate such requests. Each case depends on the worker’s beliefs, the duties at issue and the practical effect of an accommodation. There has been no lawsuit or court decision testing Durman’s request, and the AHA’s claim that he is the first Humanist to receive this kind of exemption should be treated as the group’s claim.
Review as Duties Change
The university may review the accommodation if Durman’s job changes, according to the reporting on the approval letter. No court proceeding or broader university policy change has been announced in the source material. The immediate next step is therefore the practical application of the exemption in Durman’s work, including how the university handles any future changes to required tools or responsibilities.
Employees considering a similar request would need to raise it with their employer and explain the conflict and a possible accommodation; the Kentucky decision does not guarantee approval elsewhere. Employers assessing a request must apply the relevant legal standard to the specific job and consider whether an alternative would let the employee continue performing essential duties without undue hardship.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work because of his Humanist beliefs. The accommodation does not necessarily exempt him from all meetings or systems that use AI.
Can a Humanist belief qualify as religious under U.S. employment law?
It can. Federal guidance recognizes that protected religious beliefs may be nontheistic and may include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the facts.
Does this decision give every employee a right to refuse AI?
No. This was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or general policy. An employer’s response depends on the employee’s circumstances, the job’s essential duties and whether an accommodation would create undue hardship.
What does the approval mean for meetings and AI-enabled systems?
Reporting on the approval letter says Durman may still need to take part in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. The precise limits and how they apply in every situation have not been fully described publicly.
Has a court ruled on Durman’s request?
No. The university approved the request through its equal-opportunity office. There was no lawsuit, so the decision does not set a legal precedent.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
