🔍 Read the full analysis: A Humanist Won An Exemption From Workplace AI. What Comes Next? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 for a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools at work. The decision applies to his circumstances, is not a court ruling or legal precedent, and does not exempt him from every workplace activity involving AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for an accommodation excusing him from personally using artificial intelligence tools in his job, according to the American Humanist Association and reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch. The September 25 decision recognizes his sincerely held Humanist beliefs under the university’s process, but it is an individual workplace accommodation—not a court ruling or a new legal precedent.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. He submitted a written request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24, after AI tools including Microsoft Teams Copilot were promoted for meeting notes at a department meeting. His letter also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools in development. He asked to be excused from personally using AI or large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems.
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials. The AHA said the office found the accommodation would create “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 has boundaries. Religion News Service reported that, under the letter’s terms, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university also said accommodations may be reviewed if a person’s job changes. Durman’s letter offered to take and share meeting notes himself; the case account says he already does his work without relying on AI and that the university found an alternative workable.
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 an AI Ban
The decision shows how an existing employment accommodation process can apply when an employee says a new workplace technology conflicts with a sincerely held belief. It does not establish that workers generally have a right to refuse AI, nor does it require the university or other employers to stop adopting AI. The outcome depended on the nature of Durman’s beliefs, the duties of his position and whether the proposed adjustment could be made without undue hardship.
For employees, the case illustrates that a request can be made before an employer formally requires a tool. TechCrunch reported that Durman had not yet been required to use AI; colleagues and managers had recommended trying it, and he sought an accommodation in case use became mandatory. For employers, the case underscores the importance of evaluating a request individually, considering whether the employee can still perform essential job duties and whether alternatives are workable.
The practical limits are material. A worker whose role depends on AI could face a different assessment from someone whose tasks can be completed another way. The university’s approval also does not mean Durman is insulated from all AI systems: the reported terms distinguish personal use from attending AI-enabled meetings or submitting information through AI-enabled systems.
Products Worth Considering
HP Sprocket Panorama Portable Color Photo and Label Printer
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
Dell 34-Inch S3425DW Curved WQHD USB-C Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Humanist Beliefs Fit Title VII
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires covered employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work requirement, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a deity is not required, though personal preferences and political views alone are not covered as religion.
Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer relying on undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Employers are expected to consider possible alternatives; coworker resistance by itself does not meet that standard. These principles provide the legal background, but Durman’s approval came through the university’s internal process, not a court’s application of the law.
The case is not the only reported workplace AI accommodation. Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The American Humanist Association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that “first” characterization is the organization’s claim, not an independently established finding in a court decision.
““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 full effect of the accommodation will depend on how the university’s tools and Durman’s duties change. The reported approval letter allows for review if his job changes, but the available accounts do not specify what changes would trigger a review or how a future disagreement would be resolved.
It is also unclear whether the university will receive further requests from employees or how it would assess requests involving roles where AI use is more closely tied to essential duties. The case does not settle those questions for other employers. Each request would depend on the employee’s beliefs, the workplace rule, the job’s requirements and the availability and cost of alternatives.
The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist to win this kind of exemption has not been established as a formal legal finding. The reported earlier case involving Maus also means the Kentucky decision should not be described as the first workplace AI exemption overall.
How the Accommodation May Be Reviewed
The accommodation is in effect under the university’s approval, with the university indicating that arrangements may be reviewed if Durman’s job changes. No court case, appeal or further formal decision is identified in the reporting available through October 30, 2026. The next concrete development would be any change to his role or workplace AI requirements that prompts the university to revisit the arrangement.
Employees and employers considering similar requests will need to assess the specific conflict and the work involved rather than assume the Kentucky outcome applies automatically. The university’s decision offers an example of one employer finding a way for an employee to continue performing essential duties without personally using AI; it does not determine how another employer must respond.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI to do his work. The reported terms may still require him to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through AI-enabled systems.
Why could a Humanist request a religious accommodation?
Federal employment rules can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs that play a role comparable to traditional religious beliefs. A belief in God is not required, but a personal preference or political position alone is not necessarily covered.
Does this decision give all employees the right to refuse workplace AI?
No. It was an individual university accommodation, not a court ruling or general exemption. Other requests would depend on the employee’s beliefs, job duties and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Was Durman already required to use AI?
TechCrunch reported that he had not yet been required to use it. Colleagues and leadership had recommended trying AI tools, and he requested an accommodation in anticipation of a possible future requirement.
Can the university revisit the accommodation?
Yes. The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The available reporting does not specify which changes would lead to a review.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
