🔍 Read the full analysis: AI And Religious Accommodation: How Much Protection Does US Law Offer? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Turn your quiet moments into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work because of his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision applies to his job and is not a court ruling or legal precedent; the university says he may still need to participate in meetings or workflows involving AI.
The University of Kentucky has approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, finding that the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent for other employees.
Durman, who identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god, submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24. He asked to avoid personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. His letter said he could continue doing his work manually and offered to take and share his own meeting notes.
The university approved the request on September 25 after a meeting between Durman, American Humanist Association staff and university officials. 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 does not appear to exempt Durman from every workplace interaction with AI: the letter, as reported by Religion News Service, says he may still have to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that incorporate it.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter. The source reporting says he had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in anticipation that its use might be mandated. The university may review accommodations as job duties change, according to the approval letter.
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 at Work
The case illustrates how US employment law may apply when an employee’s sincere religious or ethical beliefs conflict with a workplace rule involving technology. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers must accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Federal regulations include some moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; a belief in a deity is not required.
That does not give an employee a general right to reject any tool they dislike. The accommodation depends on the person’s beliefs, the duties of the job and the effects of the proposed adjustment on the employer. In Durman’s case, the university determined he could perform his essential duties without personally using AI. A worker whose core responsibilities depend on AI could face a different assessment.
The distinction matters as employers introduce AI assistants for meetings, writing and other tasks. Employees and employers may need to discuss alternatives, such as manual note-taking, rather than treating either AI use or refusal as an automatic requirement. The Kentucky decision shows one employer’s response, but does not settle how other workplaces or courts must handle similar requests.
Products Worth Considering
Oral-B iO5 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush with 5 Cleaning Modes
Oral-B iO Series 5 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush with Travel Case, White
Therabody Theragun Elite 5th Gen Deep Tissue Massage Gun
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Title VII and Religious Beliefs
Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable accommodation of religious practices, subject to the undue-hardship limit. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation defines religion to include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Political views and personal preferences alone do not qualify under that definition.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer rejecting an accommodation must show that it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business; coworker resentment alone is not enough, and employers must consider alternatives. The Kentucky case did not test that standard in court: the university granted the request after assessing its impact on Durman’s position.
Another reported case preceded it. 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 calls Durman the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that description is the group’s claim, 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
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The available reporting does not provide the full university assessment of how the accommodation affects Durman’s department, or a detailed account of every condition attached to its approval. It is also not clear how the university would respond if his duties change or if a future task requires him to operate an AI system directly. The approval letter reportedly allows the accommodation to be reviewed as job responsibilities evolve.
Because there was no lawsuit or court judgment, the case does not establish how a court would evaluate a similar request. The American Humanist Association’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive an exemption is its own claim. Other employers may reach different decisions based on job duties, available alternatives and the costs of accommodating a request.
Future Requests Will Be Job-Specific
The university’s stated approach leaves open the possibility of reviewing Durman’s accommodation if his role changes. The next practical test may come if AI use moves from a recommended tool to a required part of his duties, or if the university adopts new systems that affect how his work is performed.
For other employees, the process will depend on their circumstances. A worker can ask an employer for an accommodation, while the employer can discuss the belief, relevant job requirements and possible alternatives. The Kentucky case offers an example of an agreement reached without litigation, but it does not guarantee the same outcome elsewhere.
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 for his work. The reported terms may still require him to attend meetings involving AI or use systems that include it.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Federal regulations include some sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs when they are held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in God is not required, but a personal preference alone is not enough.
Does this decision create a legal precedent?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual request; there was no court ruling. The decision does not determine how other employers or courts must handle comparable cases.
Can an employer deny a request to avoid AI?
An employer may deny a religious accommodation if it can meet the legal undue-hardship standard. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, that requires showing substantial increased costs in relation to the employer’s particular business. The outcome depends on the specific job and request.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
