🔍 Read the full analysis: Why One Humanist Sought An Exemption From AI At Work 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, treating his Humanist beliefs as grounds for a religious accommodation. The decision applies to his work, is not a court ruling or legal precedent, and does not exempt him from every workplace interaction with AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, after determining that the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision, dated September 25, 2026, recognizes his Humanist beliefs for this workplace accommodation; it was an internal university decision, not a court ruling.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants and does not believe in a god. He identifies as a Humanist. 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 offered to take and share meeting notes himself, according to the letter published by the American Humanist Association (AHA).
The university approved the request after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the accommodation posed “no undue burden on his department.” A university spokesperson told TechCrunch that an accommodation could be provided while allowing Durman to continue performing the essential functions of his position.
The approval is limited. As described in the letter quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use it. The university also said accommodations can be reviewed if job duties change. Reporting by TechCrunch said Durman was not yet required to use AI when he applied; colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools, and he sought an accommodation in case their use later became mandatory.
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
A Personal Opt-Out, Not a Workplace Ban
The decision shows how a workplace can address a conflict between an employee’s sincerely held beliefs and a proposed technology policy without abandoning the technology for everyone. The university had adopted AI tools at scale: Microsoft described more than 70,000 students and employees as having access to Microsoft 365 Copilot, calling deployment “100 percent” in its customer story. That figure is Microsoft’s account of access and deployment, not evidence that every person used the tool.
For employees, the case illustrates that asking for an accommodation is different from gaining a blanket right to reject any AI-related process. Durman’s role could be performed without his personal use of AI, according to the reporting and the university’s decision. A different job, or a request that prevents essential duties from being done, could produce a different outcome. For employers, the case points to the need to examine job requirements and possible alternatives rather than treating AI use as automatically essential to every position.
The decision is also relevant because US employment law can cover some nontheistic beliefs. That does not mean every objection to AI qualifies. The request must rest on a sincerely held belief that meets the legal standard, and the employer’s obligation is subject to the undue-hardship limit.
Products Worth Considering
DJI Mic 3 Wireless Microphone System (2 Transmitters, 1 Receiver, Charging Case)
Sony WH-1000XM6 Wireless Noise-Canceling Over-Ear Headphones, Blue, Bundle
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (12th Generation, 2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Jade
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Developed
According to Durman’s accommodation letter, Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes at a department meeting on July 31, 2026. The letter also referred to suggestions to use commercial systems such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, along with internal AI tools under development. Durman wrote that AI use was not an essential function of his position and offered a manual alternative.
He submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24, with help from the AHA, and met with university officials and Huiskens in mid-September. The office approved it on September 25. The AHA publicized the decision on October 26; Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported on it in the following days. Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.”
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers covered by the law generally must accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements unless doing so would cause undue hardship. 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. A belief in a god is not required. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy said an employer claiming undue hardship must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
This was 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 AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that “first” characterization is the organization’s claim.
““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
The university’s decision applies to Durman’s circumstances and current role; it does not establish how another employer must respond to a similar request. No court has ruled on this case, and the approval creates no legal precedent. The full range of conditions attached to the accommodation is not clear from the reporting summarized by the AHA and news outlets.
It is also unknown whether the university will later require Durman to use AI as his duties change, or whether the accommodation would be revised in response. The available accounts say he can be required to participate in meetings involving AI and use systems that process materials with AI, while excusing his personal use of the tools. That distinction may matter in practice, but the sources do not explain how every possible workplace task will be handled.
The AHA’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive this type of exemption has not been independently established in the available material. More broadly, whether a belief qualifies and whether an accommodation would create undue hardship depend on the facts of each request. The case is not legal advice and does not guarantee that another employee’s request will be approved.
Review If Job Duties Change
The immediate next step is continued application of the university’s approval in Durman’s current job. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as positions change, so any future change to his duties or to the role of AI in grant administration could prompt another assessment. No further review date or new university policy was reported.
For other workers, this case may prompt questions about how to raise a belief-based conflict before AI use becomes a job requirement. The reported sequence suggests the university considered the employee’s duties, his proposed alternative and the department’s ability to accommodate him. Whether similar requests succeed elsewhere will depend on the specific beliefs, job functions and effects on the employer’s operations.
Key Questions
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
It approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI tools to perform his work. The approval does not exempt him from every meeting or system that involves AI.
Why could a Humanist request a religious accommodation?
US employment law can cover sincerely held nontheistic moral or ethical beliefs when they meet the applicable standard. Belief in a god is not required, but a personal preference or political view alone is not necessarily covered.
Does this decision mean workers can refuse all AI use?
No. This was an individual accommodation based on Durman’s beliefs, role and the university’s assessment of its effect on the department. A different job or request could lead to a different result.
Is the approval a legal precedent?
No. The university resolved the request internally; there was no lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not determine how courts or other employers would handle a similar case.
Can the university reconsider the accommodation?
The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The available reporting does not specify a review date or whether Durman’s duties are expected to change.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
