🔍 Read the full analysis: Can Employers Require AI If An Employee Objects On Religious Grounds? 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 to be excused from personally using AI tools because of his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or legal precedent, and its scope does not exempt him from every AI-related work process.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI at work, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a legal precedent for other employers or employees.
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, note-taking and decision systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him prepare the request, said the office approved it after a meeting in mid-September and found it posed “no undue burden” on his department.
The accommodation is limited. As reported by Religion News Service, the approval letter says Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. The university told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” It also said accommodations can be reviewed as jobs change.
Durman made the request after AI tools were promoted at a July 31 department meeting, according to his letter. He had not yet been ordered to use them, TechCrunch reported; he sought approval in case the recommendation became a requirement. Microsoft has described the university’s Copilot deployment as reaching more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure is Microsoft’s account of access to its product, not evidence that every worker must 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
How One Employee’s Exemption Was Granted
The case shows that a worker may ask for a religious accommodation when a workplace requirement conflicts with a sincerely held belief, even if that belief is nontheistic. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate an employee’s religious practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition includes certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a deity is not required.
That does not give employees a general right to reject workplace technology. The accommodation turns on the person’s beliefs, the duties of the job and the effect of an adjustment on the employer. The university’s reported assessment was that Durman could continue performing his essential functions without personally using AI. A role that depends on AI tools, or a request that substantially disrupts operations, could lead to a different outcome.
The legal standard for undue hardship also changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying an accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Kentucky decision itself did not determine how that standard applies in other workplaces; it records one employer’s decision about one employee.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Bose SoundLink Flex (2nd Gen) Portable Bluetooth Speaker
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Rules Behind Religious Accommodation
Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs and practices, unless the employer can establish undue hardship. The federal regulation interpreting “religion” includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Personal preferences and political views, by themselves, do not qualify simply because someone objects to a workplace policy.
Durman identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. His request argued that personally using AI conflicted with his beliefs, including his view that human beings’ capacity to think and reason should be protected. The AHA says he is the first Humanist to receive this kind of exemption, but that is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or the university. Business Insider previously reported that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May 2026.
The Kentucky process was administrative: Durman submitted a request, met with university officials and received a written approval. There was no lawsuit or judicial ruling. The case became public through the AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch in late October.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in an AHA statement
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The university’s full assessment of the request and the department’s operational needs has not been publicly detailed in the supplied reporting. It is also unclear whether the university will receive similar requests or how it would assess them. The approval does not settle whether a different employer must grant an AI exemption, nor whether every objection to AI would qualify as religious under Title VII.
The exact boundary between personally using AI and working with systems that include AI may depend on the employee’s duties and the terms of an accommodation. Durman’s reported approval still allows some participation in AI-enabled meetings and use of systems that incorporate the technology. The AHA’s claim that he is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption has not been independently established as a nationwide first.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The university says accommodations may be reviewed when jobs change. For Durman, the immediate arrangement allows him to do his work without personally using AI while retaining the essential functions of his position. No further review date or appeal process was specified in the reporting.
Employees considering a request can identify the specific work practice that conflicts with their sincerely held belief and discuss possible adjustments with their employer. Employers evaluating a request must consider the employee’s duties and whether an accommodation can work without undue hardship; a blanket refusal based only on inconvenience would not, by itself, resolve that legal question. The Kentucky case offers an example of one accommodation, not a universal rule. Any dispute over a particular request would depend on its facts and, if challenged, the applicable legal process.
Key Questions
Can an employee object to using AI on religious grounds?
An employee can request an accommodation under Title VII if a sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a workplace requirement. Whether the employer must grant it depends on the circumstances and whether the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Does a religious belief have to involve belief in God?
No. The federal definition can include nontheistic beliefs, including certain moral or ethical beliefs sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. A personal preference or political position alone is not automatically covered.
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university excused David Durman from personally using AI tools to perform his work. Reporting on the approval says he may still take part in meetings that use AI and work with systems that incorporate it.
Does the decision set a rule for other employers?
No. It was an individual accommodation approved by the university, not a court decision. Other requests would be assessed in light of the employee’s beliefs, job duties and the employer’s circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
