🔍 Read the full analysis: Where Does The Law Stop When Workers Refuse AI? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- 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, finding the accommodation would not unduly burden his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The decision applies to his role and does not establish a legal precedent or give workers a general right to refuse AI.
The University of Kentucky has approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools for his job, according to the American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him seek the accommodation. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace adjustment, not a court ruling, and does not establish a general right for employees to refuse AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In an August 24 letter to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, he asked to be exempt from personally using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the AHA.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools in development. Reporting by TechCrunch said he had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in anticipation that workplace recommendations might become a mandate.
The AHA said the university 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 letter, as quoted by Religion News Service, also indicates Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that 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
An Individual Exemption, Not a Ban
The case shows one way a U.S. employer may handle a conflict between an employee’s beliefs and workplace technology: consider an individual accommodation while preserving the job’s essential functions. It does not require the university, or other employers, to stop using AI. Nor does it mean every worker who objects to AI can obtain an exemption.
For employees, the distinction is between personal use of AI and being affected by AI systems at work. Durman was excused from using tools himself, but the reported terms do not remove him from every meeting or workflow involving them. For employers, the case highlights the need to evaluate a request against the employee’s actual duties and the practical effects of alternative arrangements.
The university’s response matters because the institution has also promoted broad access to AI tools. Microsoft said in a customer story that the university achieved “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot, with access for more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure is Microsoft’s description of deployment; it does not establish how often individuals use the product.
Popular right now
De'Longhi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
KitchenAid Classic Series 4.5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Onyx Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How U.S. Religious Accommodation Works
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with workplace rules, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The law’s definition of religion can include certain nontheistic beliefs; belief in a god is not required. 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. Ordinary personal preferences and political views do not qualify on that basis alone.
Durman identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. He said he believes “that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting,” according to the AHA’s statement. His request was reviewed by the university’s equal opportunity office after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. Huiskens described that meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.”
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation, but that is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received an AI-use exemption in May.
“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 Remain
The approval applies to Durman’s position and circumstances. The university has not announced a broader policy giving employees a general option to decline AI, and no court has ruled on the facts of his request. The available reporting does not detail how the university would respond if his job duties changed or if AI use became necessary to perform an essential function.
The exact reach of the accommodation is also limited by the reported terms. Durman may still encounter AI in meetings or systems, even though he is excused from personally using the tools. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. It is not clear how often that review would occur or what process would apply if the department’s needs shift.
Other employees’ requests would depend on their beliefs, duties and employers’ circumstances. The Kentucky decision does not determine whether a different employer could show substantial increased costs from a proposed accommodation. It also does not establish that a general objection to AI, without a qualifying sincerely held religious belief, is protected under Title VII.
How the Arrangement May Evolve
For now, the reported decision lets Durman continue his job without personally using the specified AI tools, while leaving open his participation in some AI-enabled meetings or processes. The university may review the arrangement if his role or its essential functions change. No lawsuit or court hearing is pending in the account provided, so there is no scheduled legal milestone that would turn this individual approval into a precedent.
Employers considering similar requests will need to assess them individually: what work the employee must perform, whether alternatives are workable, and whether an accommodation would create the level of hardship required by law. Employees who believe a workplace rule conflicts with a qualifying religious belief can make a request, but the outcome will depend on the facts and the applicable legal standard. The Kentucky case offers an example of one employer’s decision, not a guaranteed result for others.
Key Questions
Did the University of Kentucky ban AI for Durman?
No. The university approved an accommodation excusing him from personally using AI in his work. The reported terms may still require him to take part in meetings using AI or submit materials through AI-enabled systems.
Does the decision mean any worker can refuse AI?
No. This was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to opt out. A request under Title VII depends on a sincerely held qualifying religious belief, the employee’s job duties and whether the employer can accommodate the request without undue hardship.
Can a nonreligious person seek a religious accommodation?
U.S. employment law does not require belief in a god. The EEOC’s definition can cover some sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. A personal preference or political opinion does not automatically meet that standard.
What does ‘undue hardship’ mean for an employer?
After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Whether a specific alternative meets that test depends on the circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
