🔍 Read the full analysis: AI At Work And Religious Accommodation: Where US Law Draws The Line 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, citing no undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or precedent, and it does not exempt him from every meeting or system involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools for his job, finding that the arrangement would not create an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation under workplace policy, not a court ruling, and offers no binding precedent for other employers.
Durman, a Humanist who does not believe in a god, 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-making systems. He also offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting where 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 systems under development. He said AI use was not an essential function of his position and sought an accommodation before a recommendation to try the tools became a requirement.
The university approved the request after a meeting between Durman, association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials in mid-September. The approval is limited: according to the letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. A university spokesperson told TechCrunch an accommodation could be provided while Durman continued performing the essential functions of his position.
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 Title VII Applies to AI Use
The case illustrates how existing federal workplace protections may apply when an employee says a work practice conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires covered employers to accommodate such beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation recognizes that religious beliefs can include 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 depends on the person’s job, the belief involved and the practical effect of the adjustment. The university’s reported finding that Durman could do his job without personally using AI reflects the circumstances of his position. A role in which AI tools are necessary to perform essential tasks could raise different questions.
The decision also matters to employers introducing AI across teams. It shows that a broad rollout and an individual accommodation can coexist, but an employer must assess a request rather than assume a technology policy applies identically to every worker. The outcome is specific to one employee and one institution; it does not settle how courts or other employers should handle similar requests.
Products Worth Considering
EcoFlow DELTA 3 Classic Portable Power Station, 1024Wh, 1800W
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
LG UltraGear 27-Inch QHD OLED Gaming Monitor, 240Hz, 0.03ms, G-SYNC Compatible, FreeSync Premium Pro, HDMI 2.1
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Workplace Request to Approval
Durman’s request was prepared with help from the American Humanist Association. He and Huiskens met with the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity in mid-September; Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.” The office approved the accommodation on September 25, and the association publicized the case on October 26. Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported on it later that week.
The university has a substantial AI deployment, though the scale figure comes from Microsoft. In a customer story, Microsoft described 100 percent deployment of Microsoft 365 Copilot, with access for more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure is Microsoft’s characterization of the rollout, not an independent measurement. The contrast helps explain the case: a large-scale AI initiative did not prevent the university from granting one employee an individual exemption.
The Kentucky case follows a separate report in June by Business Insider about Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, who reportedly received an AI-use exemption in May. The American Humanist Association says Durman is the first Humanist to receive one; that is the organization’s claim, not a finding established by a court or a comprehensive public record.
“It was a very collegial meeting.”
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, speaking to Religion News Service
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The accommodation does not establish a general right to refuse AI at work. No lawsuit or court ruling is involved, and the university’s decision does not bind other employers. The public materials describe the university’s assessment of Durman’s job and department, but do not provide a broader test for deciding when an AI tool is essential to a role.
It is also not clear how the arrangement will work if Durman’s duties change or if the university adopts new systems. The approval letter reportedly allows him to remain involved in some meetings using AI and to submit materials through AI-enabled systems. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change, leaving the precise practical boundaries subject to the work involved.
Under 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. Coworker objections alone do not satisfy that standard, and employers must consider alternatives. Whether a particular AI-related request qualifies, and what adjustment is reasonable, depends on its facts; this account is not legal advice.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The immediate next step is the university’s ongoing administration of the accommodation as Durman’s work and available systems evolve. The university has indicated that accommodations may be reviewed when job duties change. No further hearing, lawsuit or formal policy change is identified in the available reporting.
For employers, the case points to an individualized process: identify the employee’s stated belief, examine the duties of the role, and consider whether a workable adjustment would create the undue hardship required by law. For workers, the Kentucky decision shows that a request can be considered even when a belief is nontheistic, but it does not guarantee approval elsewhere. Any broader legal guidance will depend on future agency action, employer decisions or court cases.
Key Questions
Can a US employee request a religious accommodation from using AI?
Yes. Under Title VII, covered employers generally must accommodate a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a work requirement, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Whether a specific request qualifies depends on the facts and the job.
Does a religious accommodation require belief in God?
No. The EEOC’s regulation recognizes certain moral or ethical beliefs as religious when sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. The Kentucky case involved a Humanist who does not believe in a god.
Does Durman’s approval mean workers can refuse all AI tools?
No. The approval applies to one employee and his work circumstances. It excuses Durman from personally using AI, but the reported terms may still require him to attend AI-assisted meetings or use systems that incorporate AI.
Is the University of Kentucky decision a legal precedent?
No. It was an employer accommodation, not a court ruling. It does not create a binding rule for other universities or companies.
What can make an employer deny an accommodation?
An employer may deny a religious accommodation if it can show undue hardship under the applicable legal standard. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, that requires substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business; the analysis depends on the circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
