🔍 Read the full analysis: When Employers Must Consider A Religious Objection To Workplace AI on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the little things that make your day 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 at work because of his Humanist beliefs. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, and its scope does not cover every use of AI or guarantee similar requests will be granted.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using workplace AI, citing his sincerely held Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision is an individual accommodation—not a court ruling or a precedent—and does not exempt him from every workplace process involving AI, according to reporting by Religion News Service and TechCrunch and documents published by the American Humanist Association.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, asked the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity to excuse him from personally using AI and large language model tools. His August 24 letter referred to automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems, including products such as Microsoft Teams Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. He offered to take and share his own meeting notes instead. The letter said he did not consider AI use an essential function of his position.
The university approved the request after a meeting between Durman, American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials in mid-September. The AHA said the office found the arrangement would place 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 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. The university may also review accommodations as job duties or workplace needs change. TechCrunch reported that Durman had not yet been required to use the tools when he sought the accommodation; he requested it after AI use was encouraged and before any possible mandate.
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 Applies at Work
The case shows that a worker may ask an employer to adjust an AI-related work requirement on religious grounds, but it does not establish a general right to refuse workplace AI. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers with at least 15 employees generally must accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs when they conflict with a work rule, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Whether a request qualifies depends on the employee’s beliefs, the job’s duties and the practical effect on the employer.
The distinction matters as organizations introduce AI for tasks such as meeting summaries, drafting and document review. An employee whose work can continue without personal use of a tool may be able to propose an alternative, as Durman did. A role in which AI use is tied to essential duties could present different facts. Employers must consider the request and possible alternatives rather than treat either AI use or refusal as automatically decisive.
The legal test for undue hardship is also not simply whether an accommodation is inconvenient. In its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court said an employer refusing an accommodation must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The Kentucky case does not resolve how that standard would apply to other AI-related requests.
Products Worth Considering
Garmin Venu 3 Fitness Smartwatch, 45 mm, Black
Levoit Core 400S-P Smart Air Purifier for Large Rooms
Garmin Forerunner 55 GPS Running Smartwatch, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Request and Approval Timeline
Durman’s letter traced his concern to a July 31 department meeting where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for taking meeting notes. He also referred to proposed use of commercial AI tools and internal systems under development. His request sought an exemption from personally using current and future AI tools, while offering a manual alternative for meeting notes.
In mid-September, Durman and Huiskens met with the Office of Equal Opportunity. Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.” The office approved the request on September 25. The AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported on the decision between October 26 and October 29, bringing the accommodation to public attention.
Federal employment law uses a broad definition of religion. EEOC regulations include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong” when they are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a god is not required, though political views and personal preferences alone do not qualify. The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation; that description is the organization’s claim. Business Insider reported in June that another employee, Unitarian Universalist software engineer Erin Maus, received an exemption from AI use in May.
““It was a very collegial meeting.””
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, speaking to Religion News Service
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The approval does not establish how another employer must respond to a similar request. It was made by a university office, not a court, and the available reporting does not describe a lawsuit or judicial ruling. The decision also rests on Durman’s specific job and the university’s assessment that an accommodation would not impose undue hardship on his department.
It is not clear how the university will handle future changes to Durman’s duties, whether it will review the arrangement, or what would happen if AI use became part of an essential job function. The precise boundaries of participation in AI-enabled meetings and systems may also depend on how those tools are used. The AHA’s claim that Durman is the first Humanist to receive this kind of accommodation has not been independently established as a comprehensive national finding.
Future Reviews and Employer Decisions
The university’s approval letter indicates that the accommodation may be reviewed if the job changes. No further review date or appeal process was identified in the published material. For now, the reported outcome is that Durman can perform his work without personally using AI, subject to the limits described in the approval.
For employees considering a similar request, the Kentucky case suggests documenting the belief and the work conflict, making a specific request, and proposing a workable alternative. For employers, the next step is to assess the individual circumstances, the essential functions of the position and any real operational costs. The case does not settle future disputes; those will depend on their own facts and, where challenged, how the applicable law is applied.
Key Questions
Can an employee object to using AI at work for religious reasons?
Under Title VII, covered employers generally must consider accommodation requests based on sincerely held religious beliefs, unless granting one would cause undue hardship. Whether a particular objection qualifies depends on the circumstances; the Kentucky case does not guarantee approval for other employees.
Does a religious belief have to involve belief in God?
No. EEOC regulations recognize that sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs may qualify when they have the strength of traditional religious views. A personal preference or political position alone is not enough.
What did the University of Kentucky allow Durman to do?
The university excused him from personally using AI tools for his work. The approval, as described in reporting on the letter, does not necessarily excuse him from meetings that use AI or from submitting materials through AI-enabled systems.
Does the decision create a legal precedent?
No. It was an individual university accommodation, not a court decision. It does not require other employers to reach the same result.
What does undue hardship mean for an employer?
The Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision says an employer must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business” to reject a religious accommodation on that basis. How that standard applies to workplace AI requests depends on the specific job and proposed accommodation.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
