Case Law | Business | World

Introduction: The Irony of a Trade Body Facing Its Own Bias Trial

In the world of human resources, few organizations carry as much clout as SHRM: with hundreds of thousands of members worldwide, it defines and promotes “best practices” for workplace equity, management, and compliance (Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)). Yet, in a landmark 2025 decision, a federal jury found that SHRM — long regarded as a standard-bearer for employment fairness — discriminated against and retaliated against a former employee based on race. The verdict serves as a stark reminder that even those who advise others on workplace justice must uphold those standards internally.

The Case: From Internal Complaints to a Jury Verdict

The plaintiff, Rehab Mohamed, worked for SHRM from 2016 to 2020 as an instructional designer. In 2022 she filed suit, alleging that a white supervisor systematically treated her less favorably than white colleagues, and that SHRM retaliated after she complained to higher-ups — including senior leadership. (AOL)

Specific allegations included:

• disproportionate scrutiny and micromanagement of Mohamed’s work compared with white peers; exclusion from meetings and opportunities; unfair criticism of her performance. (HR Brew)
• arbitrary deadlines and project expectations used as pretext for disciplining and ultimately terminating her. According to the complaint, a colleague admitted missing deadlines and facing no discipline. (HR Dive)
• a flawed internal investigation: the HR employee tasked with investigating Mohamed’s complaint had simultaneously drafted her termination documents — raising serious questions about impartiality. (HR Dive)

A federal judge refused to dismiss the case in 2024, concluding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the investigation was a “sham” and whether retaliation was real. (HR Dive)

After a five-day trial in a Colorado court, the jury awarded Mohamed $11.5 million: $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. (Business Insider)

Why the Verdict Matters: Holding “Experts” to Their Own Standards

Many legal and HR-industry observers noted the particular irony — and significance — of the verdict. As one employment attorney told reporters, “An organization that claims to set the bar for HR practices should be held to a higher standard than typical employers.” (Business Insider)

During the trial, SHRM sought to bar the plaintiff from referencing its status as an HR-expert organization — presumably to avoid the perception that it was being judged by its own standards. But the court declined, ruling that SHRM’s self-representation as a leader in “best practices” was central to the circumstances. (Business Insider)

This decision opens the door for juries — and regulators — to hold professional bodies and standard-setting organizations accountable, not just as employers, but as institutions that command trust and influence across industries.

Broader Implications: For Employers, HR Bodies, and Workplace Culture

1. Reinforced Legal Risk for Organizations Seen as “Standard-Bearers”

Organizations that market themselves as experts or authorities in employment law, workplace fairness, or compliance may now face heightened scrutiny. If they fail internally, they risk not only reputational damage, but outsized liability — especially where punitive damages are involved.

2. Pressure on HR Trade Groups to Practice What They Preach

The verdict puts pressure on other professional associations: it’s no longer enough to publish guidelines, model policies, or issue certifications. Members and clients may demand proof that the organization itself abides by the same rules.

3. Reminder for Employers: Title VII Protections Are Not “Best-Practice” Bonuses — They Are Legal Obligations

Even organizations with deep HR expertise are subject to civil rights laws like Title VII. Internal investigations, performance reviews, and disciplinary actions must be carried out impartially, transparently, and consistently — or risk liability.

4. Awareness for Employees and Whistleblowers

The case may embolden workers who face workplace discrimination or retaliation — especially in organizations that tout equity or fairness. It shows that even “HR-friendly” employers are not immune from accountability.

SHRM’s Response and What Lies Ahead

In a statement following the verdict, SHRM expressed strong disagreement: it said the verdict “does not reflect the facts, the law, or the truth of how SHRM operates.” The organization announced it plans to appeal. (SHRM)

Even as SHRM pursues appeal, the verdict is already sending ripples across the HR community. The fact that a jury awarded such a substantial punitive-damage amount may influence future employment-discrimination litigation — and raise the stakes for employers in how they handle internal complaints.

Conclusion: When the Gardener Gets Accused of Poisoning the Garden

The $11.5 million verdict against SHRM is more than just another discrimination suit — it is a symbolic and consequential judgement. It forces a leading HR institution to answer for alleged misconduct, and in doing so — reminds us all that organizational values and public commitments must be matched by internal action.

In a world where many companies outsource compliance and culture to trade bodies like SHRM, this verdict warns: no matter how comprehensive the guidelines, no matter how lofty the mission statements, the most powerful standard-setting bodies are still evaluated by courts — and juries — as employers.

For those seeking fairness at work, the case offers a measure of hope: that institutions can be held to the standards they preach. For those building or leading workplaces, it provides a warning: best practices are not optional.