🔍 Read the full analysis: How Much Can US Law Do For Workers Who Reject 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 or a blanket right to refuse AI; its scope and any future review depend on the job and workplace circumstances.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work because of his Humanist beliefs, according to the American Humanist Association and reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a legal precedent, and does not establish a general right for workers to reject workplace AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. He asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity to excuse him from using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. In a letter dated August 24, he offered to take and share meeting notes himself. He said AI use was not an essential function of his job.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools under development. The reporting says he had not yet been required to use AI, but sought an accommodation in case recommendations became a mandate.
According to the AHA, the university found the accommodation would impose no undue burden on his department. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch the accommodation could be provided while Durman continued performing the essential functions of his position. The approval letter, as described by Religion News Service, does not exempt him from every AI-related process: he may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that use it.
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 a Veto
The decision illustrates how an employer may address a conflict between an employee’s sincerely held beliefs and a workplace rule without stopping the employer from adopting AI. Durman’s accommodation is tied to his particular job and the university’s assessment that he could continue doing its essential work without personally using the tools. It does not require the university to abandon AI, nor does it guarantee the same outcome for another employee.
For workers, the distinction is practical: a request for accommodation is not an automatic opt-out from all AI-related activity. The task, the role’s essential functions and the effect of a proposed adjustment on the employer all matter. A job built around using AI could present different facts from Durman’s grant-administration role. For employers, the case is a reported example of making a targeted adjustment while continuing a broader AI rollout.
The university has described its Copilot deployment as reaching more than 70,000 students and employees, calling it a “100 percent deployment” in a Microsoft customer story. That is Microsoft’s description of access, not evidence that every person uses the software. The contrast underscores that broad availability and individual workplace requirements are not necessarily the same thing.
Products Worth Considering
Brother TD-2020A 2‑Inch Direct Thermal Desktop Label Printer with USB
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Religious Accommodation Applies
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work rule, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition of religion includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are held with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a god is not required; Humanism can qualify, depending on the individual circumstances. Personal preference or political views alone do not automatically meet that standard.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified the undue-hardship standard: an employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The assessment depends on the specific workplace and request; it is not enough simply to point to coworker dislike. Employers must consider possible alternatives.
Durman submitted his request on August 24 with help from the AHA, then met with university officials and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. The university approved it on September 25. The case became public in late October. The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive this type of accommodation; that is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency.
“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 approval does not resolve how another employer would assess a similar request. No court considered Durman’s case, and the university’s decision does not create binding legal precedent. The available reporting also does not detail every operational condition attached to the accommodation or how it will work across all university systems.
The approval letter reportedly allows Durman to participate in some meetings that use AI and to submit materials through systems that use it. It remains unclear how the university will handle future tools or changes to his role in practice. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, so the arrangement is not necessarily fixed regardless of later circumstances.
The AHA’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation should be treated as an organizational claim. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received a religious exemption from AI use in May. The available accounts do not establish how many similar requests have been made or approved nationwide.
Future Reviews Will Depend on Job Duties
The university says accommodations may be reviewed if job duties change. Any review would involve whether Durman can still perform the essential functions of his position and whether the adjustment creates undue hardship under the circumstances. The reported decision does not say that the university plans to require him to use AI later.
For workers considering a request, the case shows that an employee can raise a conflict through an employer’s accommodation process, but it does not promise approval. The outcome will depend on the belief, the duties involved and the available adjustments. The next public development to watch is whether the university changes the accommodation as its tools or Durman’s work changes; no such change has been reported.
Key Questions
Can a U.S. worker refuse to use AI at work?
A worker may request an accommodation if using AI conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Under Title VII, a covered employer must consider the request unless providing an accommodation would cause undue hardship. Approval is not automatic and depends on the job and circumstances.
Can Humanism qualify as a religion for workplace accommodation?
It can. The EEOC’s definition includes certain sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs, and belief in a god is not required. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the circumstances; a personal preference by itself is not enough.
Does the Kentucky decision create a legal precedent?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual accommodation without a lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not bind other employers or guarantee similar requests will be approved.
Does Durman have to avoid every AI-related system?
No. Reporting on the approval letter says he is excused from personally using AI, but may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that use it. The full practical scope may depend on the work involved.
Can an employer review an approved accommodation later?
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The reported approval does not specify that Durman’s arrangement will remain unchanged if his duties or workplace systems change.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
