🔍 Read the full analysis: A Worker Won An Exemption From AI. How Far Does That Protection Reach? 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, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision applies to his workplace and job; it is not a court ruling or a general right to opt out of AI, and some AI-related work duties may still apply.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, after finding that the accommodation would not create an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The decision recognizes his sincerely held Humanist beliefs under the university’s accommodation process, but it is an individual workplace decision—not a court ruling or a general exemption from workplace AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In a letter dated August 24, 2026, 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 offered to take and share notes himself. The American Humanist Association, which helped him prepare the request, published the letter.
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, the association’s staff attorney and university officials. The association said the office found that the accommodation would pose “no undue burden” on his department. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that an accommodation could be provided while allowing Durman to continue performing the essential functions of his job.
The approval is limited. Religion News Service, citing the approval letter, reported that Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university also said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change. TechCrunch reported that Durman had not yet been required to use AI; he sought approval after colleagues and managers recommended the tools and before any possible mandate.
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 shows that an employee may be able to seek a religious accommodation when a workplace rule conflicts with a sincerely held belief, including a nontheistic belief system. It does not establish that workers can refuse AI simply because they dislike it, distrust it or prefer another way of working. The law requires an individualized assessment of the belief, the job’s essential functions and the employer’s costs and operations.
That distinction matters as employers introduce AI assistants for tasks such as meeting notes, drafting and file summaries. A worker whose duties can be done without personally operating the tools may have a different accommodation case from someone whose role depends on them. The university’s reported finding that Durman could continue his essential duties was central to the outcome; it does not settle how another employer should handle a similar request.
The decision also leaves room for indirect exposure to AI: the reported approval does not bar Durman from every workflow involving the technology. Its practical reach is therefore narrower than a blanket exemption from AI-enabled systems across the workplace.
Products Worth Considering
HP Sprocket Panorama Portable Color Photo and Label Printer
HP Sprocket Photo Booth Machine Instant Color Photo Printer with 10.1 Touchscreen, LED Ring Light, 250+ Frames, 3×4 ZINK Paper, QR Code Shar
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Keyboard Tactile (Graphite)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Unfolded
According to Durman’s accommodation letter, a July 31 department meeting promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes and discussed suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI systems in development. Durman wrote that he did not consider AI use essential to his position and offered to continue taking notes manually.
He submitted his request to the Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24. He and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens met with university officials in mid-September. The office approved the request on September 25. The association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported on the decision between October 26 and 29.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act generally requires covered employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a deity is not required, but personal preferences and political views alone are not automatically religious beliefs under that standard.
The source report also cites a June Business Insider account of software engineer Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist in North Carolina, who reportedly received an exemption from AI use in May. The American Humanist Association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an exemption; that is the group’s characterization, not an independently established nationwide first.
““It was a very collegial meeting.””
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, speaking to Religion News Service
Where the Exemption’s Limits Fall
The approval does not spell out every task Durman may perform when coworkers or university systems use AI. The reported letter allows for participation in AI-enabled meetings and submission of materials through AI-using systems, but the public account does not provide a full operational list of permitted and restricted activities.
It is also unclear whether the university will revisit the accommodation if Durman’s duties change, or how it would respond if AI use becomes necessary for a particular essential function. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. No court has ruled on this case, and the approval does not decide how another employer or agency would assess a different employee’s beliefs, role or requested adjustment.
The source report describes the legal standard for undue hardship as requiring substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business, following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Whether a proposed accommodation meets that standard depends on the facts of each case; the Kentucky decision alone does not establish a universal answer.
How the University Applies It
The immediate next step is practical: the university and Durman will apply the approved accommodation to his work, with the arrangement subject to review if his job changes. The public reporting does not identify a scheduled review date or a formal appeal or court process. Any broader guidance would depend on how other employers handle comparable requests and whether disputes lead to agency action or litigation.
Employees considering a request should distinguish an objection based on a sincerely held religious belief from a general preference, describe the work rule that conflicts with that belief and identify possible ways to keep performing essential duties. Employers, in turn, must assess the specific request and its operational effects rather than treating this single approval as a blanket rule for or against workplace AI. This article reports on the case and is not legal advice.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved David Durman’s individual request to be excused from personally using AI tools in his work. The reported decision does not exempt him from every workplace system or meeting where AI may be involved.
Why could a Humanist request a religious accommodation?
U.S. employment law can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that function with the strength of traditional religious beliefs. A belief in God is not required, but a personal preference or political position alone does not automatically qualify.
Does this mean employees can refuse any AI tool?
No. The Kentucky decision is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or general right to opt out. Other requests depend on the employee’s beliefs, job duties and the effect of the proposed accommodation on the employer.
Can Durman still encounter AI at work?
Yes, according to the approval letter as reported by Religion News Service. He may still need to take part in meetings that use AI and submit materials through systems that use it, although the public reporting does not detail every covered task.
Does the approval set a legal precedent?
No. The university approved the request through its workplace accommodation process; there was no lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not bind other employers.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
