🔍 Read the full analysis: What Protection Does US Law Offer When You Refuse Workplace AI? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
The University of Kentucky approved a Humanist employee’s request to avoid personally using AI tools at work, finding the accommodation would not impose an undue burden. The case is an individual workplace decision, not a court ruling or guarantee that other workers can refuse AI; federal law requires case-by-case consideration of qualifying religious beliefs and business needs.
The University of Kentucky approved research administrator David Durman’s request to avoid personally using artificial intelligence tools for his job, granting an accommodation based on his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision applies to his circumstances; it was not a court ruling and does not establish a legal precedent for other employees seeking to refuse workplace AI.
Durman helps researchers apply for grants. 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 systems. He offered to take and share meeting notes himself. The American Humanist Association (AHA), which helped him prepare the request, said the university found the accommodation would impose “no undue burden” on his department.
The request followed discussion of Microsoft Teams Copilot at a July 31 department meeting. Durman’s letter also referred to suggested use of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI tools under development. He was not yet required to use AI, according to TechCrunch’s reporting; he sought approval in case workplace suggestions later became a requirement. The 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. According to the letter as quoted by Religion News Service, Durman is excused from personally using AI, but may still need to attend meetings where AI is used or submit materials through systems that incorporate AI. The university said accommodations can be reviewed if job duties change. The decision does not amount to a blanket right to reject every AI-related workplace process.
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 Could Apply
The case shows that, under federal employment law, some workers may seek an adjustment when a workplace rule conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation includes certain moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views. A belief in a god is not required, but ordinary personal preference or political opinion does not qualify on that basis alone.
For employees, the practical point is that a request is not automatically a veto over an employer’s technology policy. Employers must consider whether a reasonable accommodation is possible and whether granting it would create an undue hardship. The outcome may depend on the employee’s beliefs, actual duties, available alternatives and effect on the business. A worker whose essential duties depend on AI could face a different result from Durman, whose work could be done without it.
For employers adopting AI, the decision illustrates the value of evaluating requests individually rather than assuming every role requires direct use of a tool. It also does not decide questions about AI use that is embedded in ordinary workplace software, data handling or decisions made by others. Those issues depend on the scope of a particular accommodation and the job involved.
Popular right now
Roborock F25 GT Set Cordless Wet Dry Vacuum Cleaner and Mop with 2 Brushes
KitchenAid Artisan 5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Almond Cream
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Law Behind Religious Requests
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars covered employers from discriminating based on religion and requires them to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The statute generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees. The EEOC’s regulation says religious practices can include moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. Humanism may qualify in an individual case; the label alone does not settle whether a belief is protected.
The Supreme Court clarified the hardship standard in Groff v. DeJoy in 2023. An employer refusing an accommodation must show that it would cause substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. A coworker’s dislike of an accommodation is not, by itself, enough. Employers are expected to consider workable alternatives, though the law does not require an accommodation that meets the standard for undue hardship.
Durman’s request was approved after a meeting with university officials in mid-September. The AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported on the decision between October 26 and 29. The AHA says Durman is the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation, but that is the organization’s claim, not a finding by a court or the university. Business Insider reported in June that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, had received an exemption from using AI in May.
““I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting.””
— David Durman, in a statement published by the American Humanist Association
Limits of the Kentucky Decision
The decision does not establish how another employer, the EEOC or a court would assess a similar request. The available reporting does not include a court judgment or a detailed legal analysis by the university explaining each part of its review. The AHA’s statement that Durman is the first Humanist to receive this type of accommodation has not been established as a nationwide finding.
It is also unclear how the accommodation would apply if the university changes Durman’s duties or makes an AI system integral to a task he performs. The approval letter, as reported, allows review as the job changes. More broadly, the sources do not resolve whether a particular employee can object to AI used by colleagues, embedded in software, or involved in decisions without that employee personally operating a tool. Those questions would depend on the facts and the accommodation sought.
Requests Will Turn on Job Duties
The university may review Durman’s accommodation if his position changes, according to the reported approval terms. The source material does not identify a scheduled review date or say that litigation or a wider university policy change is planned. The immediate next step for other workers who object to AI is not a guaranteed exemption: they would need to raise a specific request with their employer and explain the conflict and the adjustment sought.
Employers considering such a request will need to assess the employee’s duties, whether the stated belief is sincerely held and whether an effective accommodation is available without undue hardship. The Kentucky case may inform workplace discussions, but until courts or agencies address similar disputes, its reach remains specific to Durman’s circumstances.
Key Questions
Can a U.S. employee refuse to use AI at work?
An employee can request an accommodation, but approval is not automatic. Under Title VII, a covered employer must reasonably accommodate a qualifying religious belief unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The outcome depends on the request and the job.
Can a nonreligious person qualify for a religious accommodation?
Potentially. The EEOC’s interpretation of religion can include certain sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs, and belief in a god is not required. A personal preference or political view alone does not automatically qualify.
Does the Kentucky decision give other workers a legal right to opt out?
No. It was an accommodation granted by a university, not a court ruling. It creates no legal precedent and does not guarantee that another employer must approve a similar request.
Can an employer deny an AI-related accommodation?
An employer may deny a request if it cannot reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, the employer must show substantial increased costs in relation to its particular business and consider alternatives.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
