🔍 Read the full analysis: A Humanist Won An AI Exemption At Work. What Does The Law Cover? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for an accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools at work. The decision applies to his circumstances, does not establish a legal precedent and does not exempt him from every workplace system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved a workplace accommodation on September 25 allowing research administrator David Durman, a Humanist who does not believe in a god, to avoid personally using AI tools for his work. The decision concerns one employee’s request under the university’s equal opportunity process; it was not a court ruling and does not set a legal precedent.
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, meeting notes and decision-making systems. The letter, published by the American Humanist Association (AHA), said he could take and share meeting notes himself and that AI use was not an essential function of his position.
The university approved the request after a meeting in mid-September between Durman, AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials. The AHA said the office found 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 perform the essential functions of his position.
The approval is limited. Religion News Service reported that, under the approval letter, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university has said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change. Reporting by TechCrunch said Durman sought approval before AI use became a requirement in his role; colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools.
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 Affects Work
The case shows how a U.S. employee may ask for a workplace adjustment when a job practice conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief, including a nontheistic belief system. It does not establish that workers can reject any technology they dislike. The employer considers the employee’s belief, the duties of the job and whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
For Durman, the university could allow him to handle tasks without personally using AI while he continued performing his job. A different role, where AI use is integral to essential duties, could produce a different outcome. The decision also does not amount to a broad ban on AI in his workplace: the reported terms distinguish his own use from taking part in meetings or workflows where AI may be present.
That distinction matters as employers introduce AI assistants for tasks such as note-taking, drafting and summarizing. The case offers a concrete example of an accommodation process, but workers and employers should not treat one institution’s decision as a universal rule or legal guarantee.
Products Worth Considering
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact, Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Bose SoundLink Flex (2nd Gen) Portable Bluetooth Speaker
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What U.S. Religious Accommodation Law Covers
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs when they conflict with workplace requirements, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The law generally covers employers with 15 or more employees. Federal regulations recognize that religious beliefs can include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in God is not required, but ordinary preferences and political views are not automatically protected as religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court clarified the undue-hardship standard in its 2023 decision, Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business; coworker resentment alone is not enough. Employers are also expected to consider whether alternatives can address the conflict. These legal standards provide context for the Kentucky decision, but the university’s approval itself did not interpret the law in a court judgment.
The Kentucky case is not the only reported workplace AI exemption. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The AHA has described Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; 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 published by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Approval
The complete practical effect of the accommodation will depend on how Durman’s duties and the university’s systems develop. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, but the public reporting does not specify what changes would trigger a review or how disputes would be handled.
It is also not clear whether the university’s decision would be reached by another employer with different job requirements, costs or available alternatives. No court has tested Durman’s circumstances, and there is no judicial ruling establishing that every Humanist belief about AI qualifies for protection. The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive an exemption remains the organization’s claim.
How the Request May Be Revisited
There is no announced hearing, lawsuit or further legal milestone in this case. The accommodation is in effect under the university’s approval, subject to possible review if Durman’s job changes. If AI becomes more closely tied to his duties, the university may need to consider whether the existing adjustment still allows him to perform essential functions and whether alternatives remain workable.
For employees considering a similar request, the reported case points to a practical starting point: identify the specific conflict, explain the sincerely held belief and discuss ways to complete the work without the disputed practice. Employers must assess requests individually under applicable law; this article is not legal advice.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved an accommodation for David Durman that excuses him from personally using AI tools for his work. Reported terms do not exempt him from every meeting or system where AI is used.
Can a person who does not believe in God request a religious accommodation?
Yes. Federal workplace rules can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs, including some nontheistic belief systems such as Humanism. Whether a particular request qualifies depends on its circumstances; a personal preference alone is not enough.
Does this decision mean workers can refuse any AI tool?
No. This was an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to reject AI. Employers can consider job duties, possible alternatives and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Can the university change the accommodation later?
The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. Public reporting does not specify when a review would occur or how the university would respond if AI became part of Durman’s essential duties.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
