🔍 Read the full analysis: Does The Law Cover Employees Who Won’t Use AI? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools, finding that he could continue his job without them and that the accommodation would not burden his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling; other employees’ requests depend on their beliefs, job duties and the effect on the employer.
The University of Kentucky approved a religious accommodation allowing research administrator David Durman to avoid personally using artificial intelligence tools for his work, after finding the adjustment would not prevent him from performing his job. The September 25 decision, made public in late October, is an individual university determination—not a court ruling or a binding rule for other employers.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. He requested an exemption from personally using AI after the university discussed tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot and commercial systems such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. His August 24 letter also covered automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association.
The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request on September 25, following a meeting with Durman and American Humanist Association staff in mid-September. The association said the office found that granting it posed “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 exemption is limited. According to the approval letter as reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that incorporate it. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The university can review accommodations 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
How AI Opt-Outs Meet Workplace Law
The case illustrates how an employee might seek an adjustment when an employer encourages or requires AI use that conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers with at least 15 employees generally must reasonably accommodate religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would create an undue hardship. Federal regulations recognize that qualifying beliefs can be nontheistic; belief in a deity is not a prerequisite.
That does not give employees a general right to reject workplace technology. An accommodation is a case-specific adjustment, not a veto over an employer’s policies. The analysis can turn on whether AI use is an essential function of the job, what alternatives are available and what burden an accommodation would place on the employer. Durman’s university found he could do his work without personally using the tools. A worker whose role depends on AI could face a different assessment.
The ruling may also matter as organizations expand AI access and encourage staff to use it. It shows that an employer can consider an individual exception even while adopting these systems broadly. It does not establish that every objection to AI qualifies as religious or that every request must be granted.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise Cancelling Headphones, Sandstone
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Basis
Durman’s letter followed a department meeting on July 31, 2026, where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to his account in the request. He wrote that Humanist beliefs led him to oppose personally using AI and asked to be excused from current and future tools. The American Humanist Association helped prepare the letter and participated in the subsequent meeting with university officials.
The legal framework treats “religion” broadly. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” It does not cover political views or personal preferences merely because they are strongly held. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the facts of the individual request.
Employers may refuse an accommodation if it would cause undue hardship. In Groff v. DeJoy, a 2023 Supreme Court decision, the court said an employer must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The Kentucky decision applies no new legal test; it is an employer’s response to one employee’s request.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in a statement reported by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The university’s approval does not resolve how another employer, agency or court would assess a similar request. No lawsuit or court ruling was involved, and the decision creates no binding precedent. The university has not publicly set out a detailed test for future AI-related requests in the material cited by the reporting.
It is also unclear how the accommodation would work if Durman’s responsibilities change or if a specific task becomes dependent on AI. The approval letter reportedly allows review as the job changes. The current terms do not amount to a blanket exemption from exposure to AI systems or from all work involving them.
The American Humanist Association has called Durman the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation. That is the organization’s characterization, not an independently established finding. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May. The available reporting does not establish that the two cases have identical facts or terms.
Requests Will Turn on Job Duties
For Durman, the next practical question is whether his duties remain compatible with the approved arrangement. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, and the terms may matter if AI becomes part of a task assigned to him. No further review date or scheduled legal proceeding has been reported.
Employees considering a request can describe the belief or practice at issue, identify the work rule that conflicts with it and discuss possible ways to complete the job without personally using the tool. Employers, in turn, must consider the individual circumstances and whether workable alternatives would cause the legally defined undue hardship. The specific outcome will depend on the employee’s role and the employer’s operations; the Kentucky approval does not guarantee the same result elsewhere.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI at work?
An employee can ask for an accommodation, but there is no general right to refuse workplace AI. Under Title VII, a qualifying religious belief may require an accommodation unless it would cause undue hardship. The answer depends on the person’s duties and the employer’s circumstances.
Can a Humanist or atheist qualify for a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Federal rules do not require belief in a god and can cover sincerely held nontheistic moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. A political view or personal preference alone is not automatically covered.
Does the Kentucky decision create a legal precedent?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual accommodation without a lawsuit or court ruling. Its decision does not bind other employers or courts.
What if AI is essential to the employee’s job?
The employer may have less scope to grant an exemption if personal use of AI is an essential job function, but the answer depends on the facts. The employer must assess the request and possible alternatives under the applicable legal standard.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
