🔍 Read the full analysis: A Humanist’s AI Opt-Out Raises Questions About Workplace Rights on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request for an accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools at work. The decision applies to his circumstances; it was not a court ruling and does not establish a legal precedent.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools for his work, citing a religious accommodation. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace adjustment, not a court ruling, but it draws attention to how employers may handle AI requirements when an employee says using the technology conflicts with sincerely held beliefs.
Durman, who helps researchers apply for grants, submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity on August 24. In a letter published by the American Humanist Association (AHA), he asked to be excused 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.
The university approved the request on September 25, after a meeting between Durman, AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens and university officials. The AHA said the office found the arrangement would pose “no undue burden” on Durman’s 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 narrow in scope. As described in the approval letter quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that use it. The exemption concerns his personal use of AI, not every workplace process involving the technology. The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs 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
How AI Opt-Outs Reach the Workplace
The case tests a practical workplace question: what happens when AI use is encouraged or required, but an employee objects on grounds that qualify for an accommodation? Employers adopting AI tools may need to distinguish between a tool that is convenient and one that is genuinely necessary for a particular employee’s duties.
For workers, the decision indicates that they can ask an employer to consider an accommodation; it does not create a general right to refuse workplace technology. The outcome depends on the individual’s circumstances, the nature of the belief, the job’s essential functions and whether a workable adjustment would impose an undue hardship. A role built around AI could present different facts from Durman’s position, where the university accepted that he could continue his work without personally using the tools.
The university’s reported adoption of Microsoft 365 Copilot adds context. Microsoft described access as reaching more than 70,000 students and employees in a customer story, calling deployment 100 percent. That is Microsoft’s account of the rollout, not a measure of how often each person uses Copilot. The case shows that broad access and an individual accommodation can coexist, though it does not settle how other employers should handle similar requests.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 32GS60QC-B 32-inch Curved QHD Gaming Monitor (180Hz, 1ms, 1000R, AMD FreeSync, HDR10)
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch Laptop with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, 12MP Center Stage Camera, Touch ID, Wi-Fi 7, Midnight
Apple MacBook Neo 13-inch Laptop with A18 Pro Chip, 8GB Memory, 256GB SSD, Liquid Retina Display, and 1080p FaceTime HD Camera – Blush
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Copilot Meeting to Approval
Durman’s letter says the issue arose at a July 31, 2026, department meeting, where Microsoft Teams Copilot was promoted for meeting notes. It also referred to suggestions to use commercial systems such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools in development. According to TechCrunch, Durman had not yet been required to use AI; he sought an accommodation in anticipation that recommendations could become a mandate.
Durman identifies as a Humanist and nonbeliever. The AHA says he is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation, a claim attributed to the organization rather than independently established by the university decision. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received an exemption from AI use in May.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, covered employers generally must reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulation includes certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a deity is not required, but personal preferences or political views alone do not automatically qualify. In 2023, the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that undue hardship requires substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business.
““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 Kentucky Decision
The university’s approval does not determine how another employer, agency or court would handle a similar request. No lawsuit or court ruling was involved, and the accommodation creates no legal precedent. The publicly described materials also do not establish how the university would respond if Durman’s duties changed enough to make personal AI use an essential function.
It is also unclear how frequently employers will receive comparable requests as AI tools become embedded in routine work. The source material does not provide a full account of the university’s internal review or the precise operational arrangements for every AI-enabled system Durman may encounter. The reported scope is an exemption from personal use, not a blanket exclusion from AI-related meetings or platforms.
Review as Duties and Tools Change
The university has said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. That leaves open whether Durman’s arrangement will be adjusted if his responsibilities, the department’s processes or the role of AI in grant administration shifts. No further review date or specific next step was reported.
For employers, the case points to an individualized process: consider the employee’s stated belief, identify the job’s essential functions, and assess whether alternatives allow the work to continue without substantial increased costs. For employees, the approval shows that making a request can lead to an adjustment, but does not guarantee one. The next significant development would be any change to Durman’s duties or a separate case that tests the limits of such accommodations.
Key Questions
What accommodation did the University of Kentucky approve?
The university excused David Durman from personally using AI for his work. The reported approval does not exempt him from every meeting or system where AI is used.
Does the decision give every employee a right to refuse AI?
No. It is an individual accommodation, not a general opt-out right or court precedent. Requests are assessed under the applicable law and the employee’s circumstances.
Can a nonreligious person request a religious accommodation?
U.S. workplace law can cover some sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs even when they are not based on belief in a god. Whether a particular belief qualifies depends on the facts; a preference alone is not automatically protected.
Why did the university approve Durman’s request?
The university said an accommodation could allow him to continue performing his job’s essential functions. The AHA said the office found the arrangement would pose no undue burden on his department.
Can the accommodation change later?
Yes. The university said accommodations may be reviewed as jobs change. The public reporting did not give a review date or say that a change is planned.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
