🔍 Read the full analysis: A Humanist’s AI Exemption Shows Where Workplace Law May Stop 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, citing a Humanist belief. The decision applies to his job and is not a court ruling or legal precedent; the university’s reported approval allows some participation in AI-enabled meetings and systems.
The University of Kentucky 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 decision recognizes his Humanist beliefs for purposes of an individual workplace accommodation; it was not a court ruling and does not establish a legal precedent.
Durman submitted a two-page request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24, 2026, after AI tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot were promoted for meeting notes at a department meeting. In the letter, he asked to be excused from personally using AI or large language model tools for tasks such as transcription, note-taking and decision-making. He offered to take and share his own meeting notes instead, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association.
Durman and association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with university officials in mid-September. The office approved the request on September 25. The university told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” According to the approval letter as described by Religion News Service, the accommodation does not necessarily exempt Durman from attending meetings where AI is used or submitting materials through systems that use AI.
The approval came before Durman was required to use the tools: TechCrunch reported that colleagues and managers had recommended trying them, and that he sought an accommodation in case use became mandatory. The University of Kentucky did not grant a general right for employees to refuse AI, and its spokesperson said accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change.
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
A Personal Exemption, Not an AI Ban
The case offers a concrete example of how a workplace rule involving AI may intersect with religious accommodation law. 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. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition includes certain ethical or moral beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a god is not required.
That does not mean any objection to workplace technology qualifies. A personal preference or political view alone is not automatically a protected religious belief, and an accommodation is an adjustment for an individual rather than a veto over an employer’s technology policy. The Kentucky decision turned on the employee’s circumstances and the university’s conclusion that he could still perform his job without personally using the tools.
For employees, the report shows that a request can be made before a new practice becomes compulsory, though the outcome depends on the facts and applicable law. For employers adopting AI, it highlights the need to consider whether a specific accommodation is workable and whether it would materially affect the employee’s duties or business operations. It does not settle how another employer, agency or court would handle a similar request.
Popular right now
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Vitamix Propel Series 510 Professional-Grade Blender, 3 Programs, Black
KitchenAid Artisan Series 5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Dried Rose (KSM150PS)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Developed
Durman’s letter described a department meeting on July 31, 2026, where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. It also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI systems under development. The letter said AI use was not an essential function of his research-administration position and proposed a manual alternative.
The American Humanist Association helped prepare the request. Its October 26 statement said the university found the accommodation posed “no undue burden” on the department. The university’s reported finding is specific to Durman’s role; the available account does not indicate that it applies to other employees or jobs.
The legal standard has also been shaped by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. The ruling said an employer rejecting a religious accommodation must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The source reporting describes that standard as requiring employers to consider the request’s practical effects and possible alternatives, rather than relying on coworker dislike or generalized objections.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in a statement published by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Approval Remain
The full scope of how the accommodation will work day to day is not clear from the published accounts. The reported approval letter says Durman may still have to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through AI-enabled systems. It is also not clear whether the university has issued additional written guidance on how those situations will be handled.
The approval does not determine whether a different employee’s beliefs qualify, or whether an employer could deny a similar request because of the duties involved or the costs of an alternative. Durman’s position reportedly did not require personal AI use as an essential function, a fact that may not apply in roles built around AI tools.
The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption. That is the organization’s characterization, not a finding by a court or government agency. Business Insider reported in June that a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina had received a religious exemption from AI use in May, but the available material does not provide enough detail to compare the two accommodations fully.
How the Accommodation May Change
The university may review Durman’s accommodation if his responsibilities change, according to the reported account. For now, the key practical question is whether he can continue completing the essential functions of his role without personally using AI while working within systems and meetings where AI may be present.
No lawsuit or court challenge was reported as of October 30, 2026. The case’s broader significance will depend on how other employers respond to requests and, if disputes arise, how agencies or courts apply Title VII and the Groff standard to specific jobs and costs. The Kentucky approval itself remains an individual workplace decision.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI tools for his work, according to the American Humanist Association and news reports. The accommodation is specific to his position and may be reviewed if his job changes.
Can a Humanist qualify for a religious accommodation under U.S. law?
Potentially. The EEOC’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 the circumstances.
Does this give workers a general right to refuse AI?
No. The Kentucky approval is an individual accommodation, not a general exemption or court ruling. Another request would be evaluated in light of the employee’s beliefs, job duties and the effect of the proposed accommodation on the employer.
Can Durman still encounter AI at work?
According to the approval letter as described by Religion News Service, he may still need to attend meetings that use AI and submit materials through systems that use it. The exemption concerns his personal use of the tools.
What remains unknown about the case?
The public accounts do not spell out every operational detail or how the university would handle future changes in Durman’s duties. There has been no reported court ruling on the request, so its outcome does not establish how similar disputes would be decided.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
