🔍 Read the full analysis: Can You Opt Out Of AI At Work? The Law And Its Limits 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 not to personally use AI tools, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, and it does not exempt him from every AI-related system or meeting.
The University of Kentucky approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI in his research-administration job, finding that the accommodation would not place an undue burden on his department. The September 25 decision, made public this week, applies to one employee; it is not a court ruling or legal precedent, and the university’s approval does not amount to a blanket exemption from AI-related workplace systems.
Durman, a research administrator who helps faculty apply for grants, identifies as a Humanist and does not believe in a god. 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 his request published by the American Humanist Association, which helped him prepare it.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools under development. The university approved the accommodation after a meeting with Durman and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September. The AHA said the office found that it posed “no undue burden” on his department.
The approval is narrower than a general right to avoid AI. Religion News Service reported that, under the letter’s terms, Durman may still need to participate in meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. 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 university may review accommodations as job duties change.
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 Exemption, Not an AI Ban
The case illustrates how an existing workplace civil-rights law may apply when an employee says that using AI conflicts with a sincerely held belief. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate an employee’s religious practice when it conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would create an undue hardship. The federal definition of religion can include non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs; belief in a god is not required.
But an accommodation is not a universal veto over workplace technology. The relevant questions include whether the belief is sincerely held, whether it conflicts with a work rule, and whether the employee can still perform the position’s essential functions with an adjustment. Durman’s case involved a job the university determined could be done without his personal use of AI. An employee whose core duties depend on AI tools could face a different assessment.
For employers, the decision highlights the need to consider an individual request rather than assume that AI use is automatically essential. For workers, it shows that a request can be made, but approval depends on the facts and applicable law. The case does not establish how another employer, agency or court would resolve a similar request.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Anker SOLIX S2000 Portable Power Station, 2,010Wh, 1,500W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Federal Accommodation Rules Apply
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation says religious beliefs may include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong” that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. That can encompass Humanism, though political views and personal preferences alone are not covered. Title VII generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. An employer denying an accommodation must show that it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The employer must assess the circumstances and consider possible alternatives; coworker resentment by itself is not enough.
Durman’s decision 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 AI use in May. The AHA describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that characterization is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or government agency.
““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
Where the Approval Stops
The public reporting does not establish how the university will apply the accommodation to every future tool, task or change in Durman’s job. The approval allows the university to revisit the arrangement as duties change, and its reported terms leave some AI-related activities in place. It is also unclear whether the university has published a detailed policy for handling similar requests from other employees.
The decision does not resolve how courts would treat a comparable dispute. No lawsuit was filed, and the university’s finding that this accommodation would not impose an undue burden is specific to the employee’s role and department. The AHA’s description of Durman as the first Humanist with such an accommodation has not been independently established as a legal first.
Future Requests Will Turn on Job Duties
The immediate next step is implementation of Durman’s approved accommodation and any review if his responsibilities or workplace tools change. Other employees who object to AI use can ask their employer for an accommodation, but the Kentucky outcome does not guarantee approval elsewhere. Each request will depend on the belief asserted, the work requirement at issue and whether an alternative lets the employee perform the job without imposing undue hardship.
Employers considering similar requests will need to assess the employee’s actual duties and possible adjustments under Title VII, rather than rely on a general preference for AI adoption. Whether the legal boundaries become clearer will depend on future agency guidance, employer decisions or court cases; the Kentucky approval itself did not settle those questions.
Key Questions
Can an employee refuse to use AI at work?
An employee in the United States can request a religious accommodation when a workplace rule conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Approval is not automatic: the employer can consider whether the employee can perform essential duties with an adjustment and whether the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Can Humanism qualify as a religion under Title VII?
It can. Federal employment rules do not require belief in a god; sincerely held non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs may qualify. A personal or political preference alone is not necessarily a protected religious belief.
Does the Kentucky decision create a legal right for all workers to opt out?
No. The University of Kentucky approved an individual accommodation without a lawsuit or court ruling. The decision does not set a legal precedent or guarantee that another employer must grant the same request.
What AI use can David Durman still be required to take part in?
Reporting on the approval says he may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through AI-enabled systems. The accommodation excuses his personal use of AI; it is not a complete separation from AI at work.
When can an employer deny a religious accommodation?
Under the standard set by the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer must show that the accommodation would cause substantial increased costs in relation to its particular business. The employer must assess the specific situation and consider possible alternatives.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
