🔍 Read the full analysis: A Religious Exemption For AI Use: What US Workers Need To Know 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 because of his Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a legal precedent, and does not exempt him from every AI-related workplace activity.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work because doing so conflicted with his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent for other workers.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. According to his request, he objected to using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, meeting notes and decision systems. He offered to take and share his own notes instead. The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request after receiving his letter on August 24 and meeting with him and American Humanist Association staff in mid-September.
The accommodation is narrow in scope. The approval letter, as described by Religion News Service, says Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that the arrangement lets him continue performing the essential functions of his position. The university also said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change.
According to the American Humanist Association, the university found the accommodation would cause “no undue burden” on Durman’s department. The organization helped him prepare his request. The university’s spokesperson separately said an accommodation could be provided while allowing him to perform his job’s essential functions. Those are the institution’s stated conclusions about this employee and role.
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 Applies at Work
The decision offers a real-world example of how US workplace religious-accommodation rules may apply when an employer introduces AI tools. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
Federal guidance recognizes that religious beliefs can be nontheistic. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a god is not required. That does not mean any objection to AI qualifies: political views or personal preferences alone are not necessarily protected religious beliefs.
For employees and employers, the practical point is that the job and the proposed adjustment matter. Durman said AI was not essential to his position and offered an alternative. A worker whose core duties depend on AI, or whose proposed accommodation creates substantial costs or other operational problems, could face a different outcome. The university’s approval does not give employees a general right to refuse all AI-related processes.
Popular right now
KitchenAid Artisan 5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Almond Cream
Shark HydroVac MessMaster Corded Wet/Dry Vacuum, Mop & Self-Clean (WD161)
TCL QM64L 85-Inch QD-Mini LED 4K Smart Fire TV
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Setting
Durman’s letter followed a July 31 department meeting that promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes. In his August 24 request, he sought exemption from personally using AI and LLM tools, including automated note-taking and decision systems, both then in use and adopted later. He said he could perform his work without them and proposed taking notes himself. The university approved the request on September 25.
The university has promoted broad access to AI tools. Microsoft said in a customer story that the institution achieved “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot, giving more than 70,000 students and employees access. That figure and description are Microsoft’s account; access does not establish that every person must use the product. TechCrunch reported Durman was not yet required to use AI when he sought the accommodation, but colleagues and leaders had encouraged trying the tools.
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Employers denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of their particular business, rather than relying on minor inconvenience. The Kentucky decision itself did not resolve a court dispute or apply that standard in a published judgment; it records the university’s approval of one employee’s request.
““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 This Individual Decision
The approval does not establish how another employer would handle a similar request. No court has ruled on Durman’s case, and the accommodation does not create binding precedent. The university’s full assessment of operational costs and alternatives has not been described in the supplied reporting.
The exact reach of the arrangement also depends on how it is applied as workplace systems and duties change. The approval letter reportedly allows AI-related meeting participation and use of systems that contain AI, while excusing Durman from personally using the tools. The distinction between personal use and incidental exposure may matter in future situations, but the available account does not answer every possible scenario.
The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption. That is the organization’s claim, not an independently established national record. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May, illustrating that other individual cases have also been reported.
How the Accommodation May Change
The immediate next step is implementation within Durman’s department. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed if job duties or workplace conditions change. No lawsuit or further formal proceeding is identified in the reporting, and no broader university policy change was announced.
Workers considering a request can raise the conflict with their employer and explain the religious belief involved, the work requirement it conflicts with, and a workable alternative where possible. Each situation will turn on its facts and applicable law; this case is not legal advice and does not guarantee approval. Employers will need to evaluate requests individually, including whether the employee can still perform essential duties and whether an alternative would create undue hardship.
Key Questions
Can a US worker request a religious exemption from using AI?
Yes. Under Title VII, covered employers generally must consider reasonable accommodation for a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a work requirement, unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship. Whether a particular request qualifies depends on its facts.
Does a religious accommodation require belief in God?
No. Federal workplace guidance can include sincerely held nontheistic moral or ethical beliefs. A personal preference or political objection by itself is not necessarily a protected religious belief.
What did the University of Kentucky approve for David Durman?
The university excused Durman from personally using AI tools for his work. Reporting on the approval says he may still need to participate in meetings using AI and submit materials through systems that include it.
Does this decision mean all employees can refuse AI?
No. It is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or general exemption. The worker’s duties, the belief asserted, available alternatives and the effect on the employer all matter.
What does undue hardship mean under current federal law?
After the Supreme Court’s 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. The Kentucky case did not produce a court ruling on that standard.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
