🔍 Read the full analysis: Does US Law Let Employees Opt Out Of 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 an accommodation allowing research administrator David Durman to avoid personally using AI tools at work, according to the American Humanist Association and published reporting. US law can cover sincerely held nontheistic beliefs, but the approval is an individual workplace decision, not a court ruling or a general right to reject AI.
The University of Kentucky approved a workplace accommodation allowing research administrator David Durman to avoid personally using artificial intelligence tools, after he said doing so conflicted with his Humanist beliefs. The September 25 decision, reported publicly this week, is an individual accommodation—not a court ruling or a general legal right for employees 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 approved it after a meeting in mid-September.
The accommodation is limited in scope. As described in the approval letter quoted by Religion News Service, Durman may still need to attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that include AI. 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 university may review accommodations if job duties change.
The reporting says Durman was not yet required to use AI when he sought approval; colleagues and managers had encouraged its use, and he wanted an arrangement in place if expectations changed. The AHA said the office found that the accommodation posed “no undue burden on his department.” That characterization comes from the organization’s account of the decision; the available reporting does not describe a court or outside agency reviewing 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
When Workplace AI Conflicts With Belief
The case shows that employees can request an accommodation when a work requirement conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief, including certain nontheistic beliefs. It does not mean employers must grant every request or that workers have a broad personal veto over AI systems. The assessment depends on the employee’s duties, the nature of the conflict and whether a workable adjustment can be made without undue hardship.
For employers introducing AI, the decision highlights a practical issue: a tool promoted across an organization may not be essential to every individual job. An employer may need to consider alternatives, such as manual notes or a different division of tasks, rather than assume all staff must use the same tool. For workers, the case suggests that explaining a specific conflict and proposing a way to keep doing the job can matter. It does not guarantee the same outcome elsewhere.
The legal standard for undue hardship is also more demanding than ordinary inconvenience. Under the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Kentucky decision, however, does not establish how that standard would apply to a different AI-related 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 True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Kentucky Request Unfolded
According to Durman’s letter, a department meeting on July 31, 2026, promoted Microsoft Teams Copilot for meeting notes and discussed commercial tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, as well as internal AI systems in development. On August 24, he submitted his request to the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity. He met with office officials and AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens in mid-September; Huiskens described the meeting to Religion News Service as “very collegial.” The office approved the request on September 25.
The AHA, Religion News Service and TechCrunch reported the case between October 26 and October 29. Microsoft has described the university’s Microsoft 365 Copilot deployment as reaching more than 70,000 students and employees. That figure and description are Microsoft’s own account; they do not establish that every person uses Copilot or that it is required for every role.
The source material also points to a prior reported example: Business Insider reported in June 2026 that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer in North Carolina, received an exemption from using AI in May. The AHA calls Durman the first Humanist to receive such an accommodation. That “first” description is the organization’s claim, not a finding from a court or a comprehensive record of all workplace accommodations.
““It was a very collegial meeting.””
— Alexandria Huiskens, American Humanist Association staff attorney, to Religion News Service
Limits of One Employee’s Approval
The approval does not settle how another employer must respond, or whether a worker in an AI-dependent role could receive a similar adjustment. The reporting does not provide the complete accommodation record or a detailed account of the university’s assessment of each possible alternative. It is also unclear whether the university has received comparable requests or how it would handle future disputes.
Under federal employment law, coverage and outcome depend on the specific facts. Title VII generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs unless the employer can show undue hardship. The law’s definition can include moral or ethical beliefs held with the strength of traditional religious views; belief in a deity is not required. That does not automatically cover political positions or personal preferences. Whether a belief qualifies and whether a requested adjustment is reasonable are fact-specific questions.
Durman’s approval is not a legal precedent. It was an employer’s decision on one employee’s request, and there was no lawsuit. The AHA’s account of the office’s reasoning and its claim that Durman is the first Humanist recipient should be understood as attributed statements, not independent legal determinations.
How Employers May Handle Requests
The immediate next step is for the university and Durman to apply the arrangement as his work and the tools used by his department evolve. The university says accommodations may be reviewed as job duties change. No further hearing or court proceeding is identified in the reporting, and there is no announced national policy arising from the case.
For employees considering a request, the reported process involved approaching the employer’s equal opportunity office, describing the belief-based conflict and identifying how essential work could still be completed. For employers, the case points to the need to assess each request individually, clarify which tasks truly require AI use and consider alternatives. Those steps do not predetermine the legal result; any dispute will turn on the facts and applicable law.
Key Questions
Can an employee in the United States refuse to use AI at work?
An employee can request an accommodation if using AI conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. The employer does not have to grant every request; the outcome depends on the job, the proposed adjustment and whether it would cause undue hardship.
Can a Humanist belief qualify as religious under employment law?
It can. Federal guidance recognizes that religious beliefs may be nontheistic and may include sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs with the strength of traditional religious views. A particular claim is evaluated on its facts.
Does the Kentucky decision create a right for everyone to opt out?
No. The University of Kentucky’s approval was an individual accommodation, not a court ruling or binding precedent. It does not establish that other employers must reach the same result.
What was Durman allowed to avoid?
The accommodation excuses him from personally using AI for his work. The reporting says he may still attend meetings where AI is used and submit materials through systems that include AI.
What does undue hardship mean for an employer?
After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, an employer denying a religious accommodation must show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. Whether a specific AI-related request meets that standard depends on its circumstances.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
