🔍 Read the full analysis: What Happens When An Employee Refuses AI For Religious Reasons? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- 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 was an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a legal 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 avoid personally using artificial intelligence at work because of his Humanist beliefs, according to the university’s approval letter and reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation—not a court ruling—and illustrates how US workplace religious-accommodation rules may apply to conflicts over AI use.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, requested an exemption from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision systems. His August 24 letter said AI use was not an essential function of his position and offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The university’s Office of Equal Opportunity approved the request after meeting with him and representatives of the American Humanist Association in mid-September. The association said the office found the accommodation would pose “no undue burden on his department.”
The approval is limited in scope. As described in the decision letter and reported by Religion News Service, Durman may still have to participate in meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that use AI. The university spokesperson told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” The spokesperson also said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter. The letter also referred to suggested use of commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal tools under development. TechCrunch reported that Durman had not yet been required to use AI; he sought approval in case recommendations became a mandate. Microsoft has described the university as having deployed Microsoft 365 Copilot to more than 70,000 students and employees, a figure presented in Microsoft’s own customer story.
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 the Accommodation Can Apply
The case highlights that AI use at work can raise accommodation questions when an employee says a workplace rule conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate such beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s rules include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; a belief in God is not required. Humanism may qualify, but the decision depends on the individual circumstances.
The ruling does not give workers a blanket right to reject any technology they object to. An employer can consider the job’s essential functions and the effects of an accommodation on its operations. Durman’s role could be performed without his personal use of AI, according to the account of the decision. A position built around using AI tools could present different facts. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show that it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business; coworker resentment alone is not enough.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Ninja CREAMi 7-in-1 Ice Cream Maker, NC299AMZ
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Its Legal Setting
The reported sequence began with the July department meeting and continued with Durman’s August 24 written request. He met with Office of Equal Opportunity officials and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.” The university approved the request on September 25, and the American Humanist Association, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported the case from October 26 to 29.
The governing framework is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to employers with at least 15 employees. It requires reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements, unless the employer can establish undue hardship. The US Supreme Court clarified that standard in Groff in 2023. The Kentucky decision itself did not interpret the law in court or establish a binding rule for other employers.
There has also been another reported workplace exemption involving AI. Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption in May. The American Humanist Association describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that “first” characterization is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency.
““It was a very collegial meeting.””
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, to Religion News Service
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The available accounts do not provide the full reasoning the university used to assess Durman’s beliefs or the operational impact of the accommodation. The approval letter, as described by news reports, sets out limits, but it is not a general ruling about AI in the workplace. It remains unclear how the university would assess a later change in Durman’s duties, new AI requirements or a different tool.
It is also not yet clear how many employers will face similar requests, or how courts and enforcement agencies might handle disputes involving AI-specific objections. An employee’s preference against a tool is not automatically a religious belief under Title VII. Whether a belief qualifies and whether an employer can accommodate it are fact-specific questions. The American Humanist Association’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an exemption has not been independently established as a nationwide count.
How Employers May Respond
The immediate next step is the university’s ongoing administration of the accommodation. Its spokesperson said accommodations may be reviewed if jobs change, so the arrangement could be reconsidered if AI becomes necessary to Durman’s essential duties or if the workplace’s needs otherwise shift. No lawsuit or further formal proceeding was reported alongside the approval.
For employers and workers, the case points to a practical process rather than an automatic answer: document the conflict, discuss the specific job duties, and consider whether another way to complete the work is available. Any denial would need to meet the legal undue-hardship standard. The Kentucky decision may inform discussion, but other employers must assess requests under their own facts and the applicable law.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI for religious reasons?
An employee in the United States can request a religious accommodation under Title VII if AI use conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. The employer must consider the request, but approval depends on the circumstances and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Does a religious belief have to involve belief in God?
No. US employment rules can cover some non-theistic beliefs, including moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. Whether a particular belief qualifies is assessed individually.
Does the Kentucky approval mean employees can opt out of all AI?
No. Durman’s accommodation exempts him from personally using AI; reports say it may not exempt him from meetings that use AI or systems he must use to submit materials. It is not a general right to reject every AI system.
Is the University of Kentucky decision a legal precedent?
No. The university approved an individual workplace accommodation, and no lawsuit or court ruling was reported. Other employers and employees must assess requests under the applicable law and their specific circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
