🔍 Read the full analysis: Should Employees Be Able To Refuse AI For Religious Reasons? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling; the university’s approval does not establish a general right to refuse AI.
Durman, a Humanist who does not believe in a god, submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24. In a letter published by the American Humanist Association, he asked to be excused from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself.
The university approved the request on September 25, following a meeting between Durman, the office and American Humanist Association staff in mid-September. The association 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 the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.”
The approval is narrow in scope. According to the letter as reported by Religion News Service, Durman is excused from personally using AI, but may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that include AI. The university said accommodations can be reviewed if job duties change.
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
AI Rules Meet Religious Accommodation
The case offers a concrete example of how workplace AI policies can intersect with religious accommodation law. It does not establish that employees can reject AI whenever they object to it. Rather, it shows that an employer may consider an individual request when a sincerely held belief conflicts with a work practice and the requested adjustment does not prevent the employee from doing essential job duties.
For employees, the distinction matters: a request for accommodation is not the same as a blanket veto over technology used by an employer. For companies, the case illustrates the need to assess requests individually, identify the actual duties at issue and consider workable alternatives instead of treating a new tool as automatically mandatory for every worker.
The university’s decision may be particularly relevant to employers expanding AI use across office work. Microsoft has described the university’s Microsoft 365 Copilot deployment as providing access to more than 70,000 students and employees. That company description signals the scale of access, but does not establish that every person must use the tool or that every job depends on it.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
KitchenAid Classic Series 4.5 Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer K45SS, Onyx Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Developed
Durman’s letter says AI note-taking was promoted at a department meeting on July 31, including Microsoft Teams Copilot. It also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools under development. According to TechCrunch, Durman had not yet been required to use AI; he sought approval in anticipation that its use might later become a mandate.
In the August 24 letter, Durman said AI use was not an essential function of his job as a research administrator helping researchers apply for grants. He argued that he could perform the work without the tools and offered to take his own notes. He later met with university officials and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens. Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.”
The legal framework cited in the reporting is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which requires covered employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a deity is not required. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy said an employer claiming undue hardship must show “substantial increased costs” in relation to its business.
A separate case was reported by Business Insider in June: Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, reportedly received an exemption from AI use in May. The American Humanist Association has described Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation. That characterization is the group’s claim, not a court finding or independently established legal milestone.
„“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 Approval
The approval applies to one employee and his current duties. There has been no lawsuit or court ruling in Durman’s case, and the decision does not settle how another employer should handle a similar request. The university’s assessment may depend on the details of the job, the tools involved and whether an alternative would allow the employee to carry out essential duties.
It is also not clear from the public reporting how the arrangement will work in every situation involving AI systems, including tools embedded in ordinary workplace software. The approval letter reportedly allows Durman to participate in meetings where AI is used and to submit materials through systems that use AI, while excusing him from personally using the tools. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed if job responsibilities change.
Nor does the case mean that opposition to AI, by itself, qualifies as a religious belief under federal law. The relevant question is whether a belief is sincerely held and religious in nature under the applicable standard. Political views and personal preferences are not covered simply because an employee feels strongly about them. The American Humanist Association’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to receive an exemption remains the organization’s claim.
Future Requests Will Depend on Duties
The university says accommodations can be reconsidered as a job changes. That leaves open whether Durman’s arrangement will be adjusted if his duties or the university’s AI systems change. No further review date or next formal decision has been announced in the reporting.
For other workers, the case points to a practical first step: raise a specific request with the employer and explain the conflict, the work tasks affected and any proposed alternative. Employers will need to assess the individual circumstances, including whether the employee can continue performing essential functions and whether the proposed adjustment would create undue hardship. Any broader legal outcome would depend on future requests, employer decisions or litigation; the Kentucky approval itself does not settle those questions.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI for religious reasons in the United States?
An employee may request a religious accommodation under Title VII. Whether it must be granted depends on the belief, the job’s essential duties and whether the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The Kentucky decision is an individual approval, not a general right to refuse AI.
Why could a Humanist qualify for a religious accommodation?
Federal workplace rules do not require belief in a god. The EEOC’s regulation includes some sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs when held with the strength of traditional religious views. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the circumstances.
What did the University of Kentucky allow Durman to do?
The university excused Durman from personally using AI tools for his work. Reporting on the approval says he may still have to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that include AI.
Does the decision create a legal precedent?
No. The university approved an individual request through its equal opportunity office. There was no lawsuit or court ruling, so the decision does not set a binding legal precedent.
Can an employer deny a similar request?
An employer may deny a request if it cannot provide an effective accommodation without undue hardship under the law. The Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy standard requires a showing of substantial increased costs in relation to the employer’s particular business; the outcome depends on the facts of each case.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
