🔍 Read the full analysis: What US Law Covers When Workers Object To AI 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 to avoid personally using AI at work, citing a sincerely held Humanist belief. The decision was an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a general right to refuse AI; Title VII protections depend on the circumstances and an employer’s undue-hardship assessment.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using AI tools at work, after finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision illustrates how federal religious-discrimination law may cover some sincerely held nonreligious beliefs, but it was an individual accommodation—not a court ruling or a blanket right to refuse workplace AI.
Durman, a Humanist who helps researchers apply for grants, submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24. In the letter, published by the American Humanist Association (AHA), he sought an exemption from personally using AI and large language model tools, including automated transcription, note-taking and decision-making systems. He also offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The university approved the request on September 25, following a meeting in mid-September, the AHA said.
The accommodation is limited. According to the approval letter as described by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where others use AI and submit materials through systems that include AI. The university told TechCrunch that “an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position.” It 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. He said he wanted an accommodation in case suggested use of AI tools later became a requirement. TechCrunch reported that he had not yet been required to use AI. The AHA says the university found the arrangement posed “no undue burden on his department.”
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
When AI Use Conflicts With Belief
The case offers a practical example of how a workplace AI policy can intersect with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The law requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a work requirement, unless accommodation would cause undue hardship. Federal regulations recognize that religious beliefs can include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a deity is not required.
That does not make an employee’s objection an automatic veto over a tool or policy. The accommodation process weighs the worker’s belief and job duties against the employer’s operations. Durman’s position could be performed without his personal use of AI, according to the account of the university’s decision. A role built around AI systems could present different facts, including whether alternatives would let the employee perform essential functions without imposing undue hardship.
For employees, the decision shows that asking for an accommodation can be possible even before a suggested tool becomes mandatory. For employers, it underscores the need to consider requests individually rather than assume that an AI rollout makes personal use essential for every role. The decision does not establish how another employer—or a court—would resolve a similar request.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Bluetooth Headphones with Active Noise Cancellation, Mic, USB‑C Charging, Deep Bass, 24‑Hour Battery – White Smok
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Kentucky Request and Federal Rules
Durman’s request was made with help from the AHA, a nonprofit representing Humanists, atheists and other nontheists. He wrote that using AI conflicted with his beliefs and that AI use was not an essential function of his position. After meeting with university officials in mid-September, he received approval on September 25. The AHA and Religion News Service reported the case on October 26, followed by TechCrunch on October 29.
Title VII generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable religious accommodation unless the employer can show undue hardship. In 2023, the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that an employer refusing an accommodation must show “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” The legal standard calls for consideration of the specific workplace and request; coworker dislike alone is not the stated test.
The Kentucky case is not the only recent report of an AI-related religious accommodation. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The AHA describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one; that “first” characterization is the organization’s claim, not a court finding.
“The accommodation posed “no undue burden on his department.””
— The American Humanist Association, describing the university’s finding
Limits of This Individual Approval
The university’s approval is an administrative accommodation, not a lawsuit or judicial ruling. It does not create a binding precedent or determine whether a different employee’s beliefs, duties or requested exemption would qualify. The available reporting also does not provide the university’s full accommodation file or a detailed explanation of how it evaluated every possible workplace impact.
It is not clear whether Durman’s job or the accommodation has since changed. The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The exact boundary between personally using an AI tool and interacting with an AI-enabled system may also depend on the tool and task; the reported approval allows some participation in meetings using AI and submission through systems that use it.
Whether an ethical objection qualifies as religious under Title VII depends on the nature and sincerity of the belief and the facts of the request. A personal preference, political view or general dislike of AI is not automatically covered. This report describes the sources’ account of the case and general federal rules; it is not legal advice.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The next development may come if Durman’s duties change or the university changes its AI systems or requirements. The university has said it can review accommodations as jobs change, but no further review or dispute is reported in the available accounts.
In the meantime, employers considering AI mandates will need to assess accommodation requests against the particular job, the employee’s stated belief and the operational effects of possible alternatives. Employees who believe a requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief can raise the issue with their employer; the Kentucky decision does not guarantee that a request will be granted.
Any broader legal guidance will depend on future agency action, disputes or court decisions. For now, the Kentucky approval is evidence that a tailored opt-out can be workable in at least one role—not a nationwide rule that workers may refuse AI whenever they object.
Key Questions
Can a worker refuse to use AI under U.S. law?
Sometimes, but not automatically. Title VII may require an employer with 15 or more employees to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a work rule, unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship. The outcome depends on the request and the job.
Can a Humanist or atheist request a religious accommodation?
Potentially. Federal regulations include certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views within the meaning of religion. Atheism or Humanism alone does not guarantee an accommodation; the belief and the circumstances must be considered.
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university approved David Durman’s request not to personally use AI tools in his work. The reported terms still allow some participation in meetings using AI and submission through systems that include AI.
Does the Kentucky decision give every worker a right to opt out?
No. It was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or binding precedent. Another request could be decided differently based on the employee’s belief, job duties, available alternatives and the employer’s operational costs.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
