🔍 Read the full analysis: How Far Can Religious Accommodation Go When A Job Uses AI? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a broad right to refuse AI; the university said he can still perform his job’s essential functions.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, finding that the accommodation would not prevent him from performing his job’s essential functions. The September 25 decision, made public in late October, is an individual workplace accommodation—not a court ruling or a general exemption from employer AI policies.
Durman, who identifies as a Humanist and nonbeliever, submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24, according to his letter published by the American Humanist Association (AHA). He asked to be excused from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself.
The letter followed a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman also referred to possible use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, along with internal AI systems under development. He said using AI was not an essential function of his research-administrator role, which includes helping researchers apply for grants.
The university approved the request after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. 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 letter, as quoted by Religion News Service, says Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The accommodation is about his personal use, not a prohibition on AI across the workplace.
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 decision illustrates how an employer may reconcile a worker’s sincere religious or ethical beliefs with a workplace adopting AI. It does not establish that employees can reject any technology they object to: the outcome depended on the university’s assessment of Durman’s particular duties and whether the adjustment would disrupt the department.
That distinction matters as employers introduce AI for meeting records, writing and administrative work. A worker may seek an accommodation when a work requirement conflicts with a sincerely held belief, but the employer can assess the request against the job’s essential functions and operational needs. The university also said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. A position that depends on AI could present a different case from one where the employee can perform the work by other means.
For employers, the case points to the value of considering practical alternatives rather than treating a request as an automatic refusal of technology. For employees, it shows that a request can be made before AI use becomes mandatory. The Kentucky approval is one employer’s decision on one record; it does not resolve how another employer, agency or court would assess a similar request.
Popular right now
TCL T7 Series 85-Inch 4K 144Hz QLED Smart Google TV
KitchenAid Artisan 5-Qt Tilt-Head Stand Mixer – Almond Cream (KSM150PS)
Vitamix Propel Series 510 Professional-Grade Blender, 3 Programs, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Title VII Applies to Belief
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a workplace rule, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The law covers employers with 15 or more employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes certain 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, though political views and ordinary personal preferences are not, by themselves, religious beliefs under that standard.
The AHA assisted Durman and says he is the first Humanist to receive an accommodation of this kind. That “first” description is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency. 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 legal standard for undue hardship changed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying an accommodation must show that granting it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to its particular business. The Kentucky matter did not test that standard in court: the university approved the request and said the accommodation imposed no undue burden on the department, according to the AHA.
““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
Where the Accommodation’s Limits Lie
The approval does not spell out every situation in which Durman may encounter AI. The published account says he may still have to take part in AI-supported meetings and use systems that process submitted materials. The precise line between permitted participation and personally using a tool is not fully detailed in the available reporting.
It is also unclear whether the university will change the accommodation if Durman’s duties change or if AI becomes necessary for a task he performs. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs evolve. No court has ruled on this request, and the record described in the reporting does not establish how another employer would handle a comparable case.
Durman had not yet been required to use AI when he sought approval, according to TechCrunch; colleagues and leaders had recommended trying the tools. The request was made in anticipation of possible future requirements, rather than in response to a reported disciplinary action or an existing AI-use mandate.
Review if Job Duties Change
The immediate next step described by the university is continued work under the approved accommodation, subject to possible review as Durman’s role changes. The public accounts do not identify a scheduled review date, a pending legal challenge or a wider university policy change arising from the decision.
For now, the case is a practical example rather than binding guidance from a court. Any employee considering a similar request would need to explain the conflict between a sincerely held belief and a workplace requirement; an employer would need to evaluate the request and possible adjustments against the actual job and its business needs. Whether an accommodation is required remains specific to those facts.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI tools in his work. The approval does not bar him from every meeting or system involving AI, and the available account says he may still need to participate in AI-supported meetings and submit materials through AI-using systems.
Can a nonbeliever request a religious accommodation under U.S. law?
Potentially. Title VII’s understanding of religion can include certain sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs, and a belief in God is not required. Whether a request qualifies depends on the nature of the belief and the circumstances; personal preference or political disagreement alone is not automatically a religious belief.
Does this ruling give every employee a right to refuse AI?
No. This was an individual accommodation approved by an employer, not a court ruling or a general right to opt out. The effect of another request would depend on the employee’s belief, job duties, available alternatives and the burden on the employer.
Why did the university approve Durman’s request?
The university said an accommodation allowed him to continue performing his job’s essential functions. The AHA reported that the office found no undue burden on his department. The university’s approval was specific to his role and circumstances.
Could the accommodation change later?
Yes. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The public reporting does not give a review date or specify how the university would respond if AI became necessary for one of Durman’s duties.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
