🔍 Read the full analysis: What A Humanist’s AI Exemption Reveals About US Workplace Law on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a legal precedent, and the limits of any similar request will depend on the employee’s beliefs, job duties and the employer’s circumstances.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, according to the American Humanist Association and reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch. The September 25 decision treats his sincerely held Humanist beliefs as grounds for an individual workplace accommodation; it was an internal decision, not a court ruling, and does not establish a rule requiring employers to grant similar requests.
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 said using AI was not an essential function of his position and offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The request followed a July 31 department meeting that promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter, which also referred to commercial tools including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.
Durman and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with university officials in mid-September. The university approved the accommodation on September 25. The AHA said the office found that it would impose “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 reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. The university has also said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. TechCrunch reported that Durman had not yet been required to use AI; he sought approval after colleagues and leaders recommended trying the tools, in case their use later became a requirement.
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 Accommodation Rule Applies
The case illustrates how Title VII’s religious accommodation rules may apply when a workplace policy conflicts with a belief system that is not based on belief in a god. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation defines religious beliefs to include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. The legal standard can cover nontheistic beliefs, but it does not automatically cover every personal objection or preference.
For employees, the practical point is that they can ask their employer for an accommodation, but an approved request is not a general right to refuse any tool. Employers must consider a qualifying request and may deny it if granting it would create an undue hardship. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer relying on that defense must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The employee’s duties and the available alternatives matter: the university said Durman could continue performing his essential work without personally using AI.
The decision also has limited reach. It is an individual administrative accommodation, not a court interpretation binding on other employers. A worker whose core duties depend on using AI could face different facts from a research administrator who can complete the work by hand. An employer may also assess whether a requested adjustment affects business operations and whether another accommodation can resolve the conflict.
Popular right now
Vitamix Propel Series 510 Professional-Grade Blender, 3 Programs, Black
De'Longhi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother
Ninja Foodi DualZone 10-Qt Air Fryer, 6-in-1, Black (DZ302)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From AI Recommendation to Approval
The sequence began with a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s request letter. On August 24, he sent the OEO a two-page application prepared with help from the American Humanist Association. He sought an exemption covering current and future tools, rather than only one product. The pair met with university officials in mid-September, and the office approved the request on September 25.
The university’s decision came as it expanded access to AI products. Microsoft’s customer story describes a 100 percent deployment of Microsoft 365 Copilot at the university, with access for more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure and characterization come from Microsoft, not an independent audit. The accommodation shows that an institution’s broad rollout and an individual adjustment can coexist, at least where the employer finds the employee can still perform essential duties.
The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive a workplace AI exemption. That is the organization’s claim, not a finding established by the university or a court. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received a religious exemption from using AI in May. The cases are separate and do not establish a general policy for employers.
“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 Kentucky Decision
The public accounts do not establish how the university will handle every future AI-related task or how often it might review Durman’s accommodation. The approval letter reportedly permits participation in meetings where AI is used and submission through AI-enabled systems, while excusing personal use; the precise boundary may depend on the task and how the job changes.
It is also unclear whether the university’s reasoning would lead another employer to approve a comparable request. The sources describe the OEO’s decision and its conclusion that the adjustment would not burden the department, but there was no lawsuit or court ruling testing the facts. The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation has not been independently established in the material available.
More broadly, the legal outcome in any case would depend on whether the belief is sincerely held and religious in the relevant legal sense, whether it conflicts with a workplace requirement, and whether an accommodation can be made without undue hardship. The Kentucky approval does not settle those questions for other workers or employers.
How the Accommodation May Change
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. If AI use becomes part of a new task or requirement, the office may need to consider whether Durman can still perform the essential functions with the existing adjustment or another arrangement. The public reporting does not identify a scheduled review date or a planned change to his duties.
For other employees, the next step is an individual conversation with their employer about the conflict, the belief behind the request and workable alternatives. Employers will need to evaluate requests against the employee’s actual responsibilities and the cost or operational effect of granting them. No further university ruling or legal proceeding has been announced in the source material, so the Kentucky case remains a specific accommodation rather than a broader legal test.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work. The reported terms still allow for participation in meetings that use AI and submission through systems that incorporate it.
Can Humanists qualify for a religious accommodation under US law?
Potentially. Federal workplace rules can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that function with the strength of traditional religious beliefs; belief in a god is not required. Whether a particular request qualifies depends on its facts and the applicable legal standard.
Does the case mean employees can refuse any AI tool?
No. The approval is specific to Durman and his job. Employers may consider whether a belief-based conflict exists, whether the employee can still perform essential duties, and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Was the Kentucky decision a court ruling?
No. The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved an internal accommodation. There was no lawsuit or court judgment, so the decision does not create a binding precedent for other workplaces.
What remains uncertain about the exemption?
The public accounts do not give a schedule for reviewing the accommodation or spell out how it will apply to every future task. The university says accommodations may be revisited as job duties change.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
