🔍 Read the full analysis: Understanding The Legal Limits Of An AI Refusal At Work 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 a religious accommodation excusing him from personally using AI tools at work. The approval is specific to his job and is not a court ruling or legal precedent; the scope of accommodations depends on the belief, duties, and burden on the employer.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to be excused from personally using artificial intelligence tools at work, recognizing his Humanist beliefs under a religious-accommodation process. The September 25 decision is an individual workplace accommodation, not a court ruling, and does not establish a general right for employees to refuse AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. In an August 24 letter to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity, 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 American Humanist Association (AHA) assisted with the request.
The university approved it after a meeting in mid-September. The AHA said the office determined the accommodation posed “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 limited. Religion News Service reported that Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that use AI. The university’s approval letter also indicates accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. Durman was not yet required to use the tools when he requested the exemption; reporting by TechCrunch said colleagues and managers had recommended trying them.
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 narrow exemption in an AI rollout
The case shows that employers may need to consider an employee’s request for an adjustment when a work rule conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. It does not mean an employee can refuse any technology simply because they object to it: the accommodation process weighs the employee’s belief and job duties against the employer’s operational needs.
The distinction matters as organizations introduce AI into routine work. Microsoft described the University of Kentucky as having reached “100 percent deployment” of Microsoft 365 Copilot, with access for more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure is Microsoft’s description of access and deployment; it does not establish how often each person uses the tools. The university’s decision indicates that broad rollout and an individual accommodation can coexist, at least where the employee can still perform the essential functions of the job.
For workers, the approval offers an example of asking through an established accommodation process rather than treating refusal as automatic. For employers, it underscores the need to review requests individually, identify essential duties, and consider workable alternatives.
Popular right now
Roborock F25 GT Set Cordless Wet Dry Vacuum Cleaner and Mop with 2 Brushes
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
De'Longhi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How federal accommodation rules apply
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires covered employers—generally those with at least 15 employees—to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief unless doing so would cause undue hardship. 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. Belief in a deity is not required, though political views and personal preferences alone do not qualify.
The legal standard for undue hardship changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Employers relying on that defense must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of their particular business. The Kentucky approval reflects the university’s assessment of this employee’s circumstances; it does not determine how another employer or a court would assess a different request.
The source account also cites a separate case reported by Business Insider in June: software engineer Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist in North Carolina, reportedly received an exemption from AI use in May. The AHA describes Durman as the first Humanist to receive one. That “first” characterization is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court.
““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 approval remain specific
The public reporting does not establish whether the university will apply the same accommodation to other employees or how it would respond if Durman’s duties change. The approval letter reportedly allows review as work evolves, but the source material does not set out when or how such a review would occur.
It is also unclear how employers would assess requests from workers whose essential duties depend on AI, or whether a proposed alternative would impose substantial increased costs. Durman’s case does not answer those questions. Nor does it settle whether a particular objection qualifies as a sincerely held religious belief; that assessment depends on the facts of an individual request.
Future duties may prompt review
For now, Durman’s accommodation permits him to continue performing his job without personally using the covered AI tools, according to the reporting. The university may review the arrangement if his duties change. Any wider legal guidance would depend on further employer decisions, agency action, or court cases; no such ruling arose from this approval.
Employees considering a similar request can raise it with their employer’s accommodation office and explain the belief involved, the work duty that conflicts with it, and any practical alternative. Employers will need to assess each request against the actual role and operational circumstances. This report describes the available account of one case and is not legal advice.
Key Questions
Can an employee legally refuse to use AI at work?
An employee may request a religious accommodation under Title VII if AI use conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. Approval is not automatic and depends on the job, the request, and whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship.
Why did the university treat Humanism as a religious belief?
EEOC regulations can cover sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong when they are held with the strength of traditional religious views. Belief in a god is not required.
Does the Kentucky decision apply to other workers?
No. It was an individual accommodation approved by the university, not a court judgment or precedent. Other requests would be evaluated on their own facts.
Can an employer deny an AI-use accommodation?
An employer may deny a request if it cannot reasonably accommodate the belief without undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff decision, the employer must show substantial increased costs in relation to its particular business.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
