🔍 Read the full analysis: The US Rules On Religious Exemptions From AI At Work on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get everyday essentials 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, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden on his department. The decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling or a precedent, and does not exempt him from every workplace system that uses AI.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools for his work, finding the arrangement would not place an undue burden on his department, according to the American Humanist Association. The September 25 decision applies to one employee and is an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or a broad exemption from AI in the workplace.
Durman, who helps researchers 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. The letter also addressed commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal systems the university might adopt later.
The request followed a July 31 department meeting at which Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes, according to Durman’s letter. Reporting by TechCrunch said he had not yet been required to use AI; colleagues and managers had recommended trying the tools. He sought an accommodation in case the suggestion became a mandate. Durman offered to take and share his own meeting notes, saying AI use was not an essential function of his position.
After a meeting with Durman and American Humanist Association staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September, the university approved the request on September 25. The AHA said the university found there was “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 letter, as reported by Religion News Service, says Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use it.
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 how existing workplace religious-accommodation rules may apply when an employer introduces new technology. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief when it conflicts with a workplace requirement, unless doing so would create an undue hardship. Federal guidance recognizes that qualifying beliefs can be nontheistic; belief in a deity is not a requirement.
That does not give employees a general right to reject any technology they dislike. A request is assessed individually, including whether the belief is sincerely held, what duties the job requires, and whether the employer can make a workable adjustment. Durman’s case involved work the university determined he could continue doing without personally using AI. An employee whose essential duties depend on an AI system could face a different assessment.
For employers, the case is a reminder to consider accommodation requests as AI tools become part of ordinary workflows, rather than treating rollout as an automatic requirement for every worker. For employees, it suggests a request may be considered even before AI use is compulsory, but its scope depends on the facts and the employer’s obligations. The Kentucky decision does not bind other employers or settle how a court would rule in a similar dispute.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Performance Keyboard – Clicky
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
Jackery Explorer 300 Portable Power Station, 292Wh
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Legal Rule Behind the Request
Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs, subject to the undue-hardship limit. 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. Humanism can qualify in an individual case; political views and personal preferences alone are not covered simply because someone strongly holds them.
The standard for undue hardship changed after the Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy decision in 2023. An employer denying an accommodation must show that it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business, rather than relying on a minimal burden. The employer must consider the actual circumstances and possible alternatives.
The Kentucky university’s AI adoption formed part of the setting, but figures about deployment come from Microsoft’s own customer story. Microsoft described a 100 percent deployment of Microsoft 365 Copilot, providing access to more than 70,000 students and employees. That is the company’s characterization of the rollout, not an independent finding about how often those people use the software.
““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 This Individual Approval
The university’s decision does not establish how other employers must respond. No lawsuit or court ruling was involved, and the accommodation does not set a legal precedent. The university may review accommodations as job duties change, according to the reported approval terms.
The exact application of the arrangement to every AI-enabled workflow is not fully clear from the available reporting. The approval letter reportedly permits Durman to attend meetings where AI is used and to submit materials through systems that use AI, even as it excuses him from personally using the tools. The sources do not provide a complete list of systems or explain every boundary between personal use and participation in an AI-enabled process.
The AHA calls Durman the first Humanist to receive such an exemption. That is the organization’s claim, not a government finding. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from AI use in May. The available reports do not establish how common these requests are or how other employers have handled them.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The university’s accommodation may be revisited if Durman’s duties or the tools used in his job change. For other workers, the next step is likely to be an individual discussion with an employer or its equal employment office, rather than an automatic right to opt out of workplace AI. Employers must assess the request, the employee’s duties and possible adjustments under the applicable legal standard.
Further cases could clarify how that standard applies when AI is closely tied to essential job functions, or when a worker is asked to participate in a process that uses AI without personally operating the tool. For now, the Kentucky approval is a documented example of an employer granting a limited accommodation while maintaining that the employee can perform the job. It does not answer how a court would resolve a contested request.
Key Questions
Can a U.S. employee request a religious exemption from using AI at work?
An employee can request an accommodation if a sincerely held religious belief conflicts with a work requirement. Under Title VII, an employer covered by the law must consider reasonable accommodation unless it would cause undue hardship. Whether a particular request qualifies depends on the circumstances.
Does a religious accommodation require belief in God?
No. Federal employment guidance recognizes that some nontheistic moral or ethical belief systems may qualify as religious beliefs. A personal preference or political view alone is not automatically covered.
What did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university approved David Durman’s request to avoid personally using AI tools for his work. Reporting on the approval says he may still attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through AI-enabled systems.
Does the Kentucky decision create a legal precedent?
No. It was an individual workplace accommodation, not a court decision. It does not require other employers to grant the same request or determine how a court would rule in a similar case.
Can an employer deny an AI-related religious accommodation?
An employer may deny a request if it can show that granting it would cause undue hardship under the applicable legal standard. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, that standard requires substantial increased costs in relation to the employer’s particular business. The employer must assess the specific request and circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
