Watching SHRM, an organization that is renowned for promoting workplace equity, defend itself against allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation struck me as incredibly ironic. The institution that has long claimed the upper hand in human resources suffered a reputational earthquake when the jury decided to award Rehab Mohamed $11.5 million in damages.
Mohamed reportedly got good performance reviews while working as an instructional designer. Her history demonstrated consistent development and increasing responsibility. However, after she filed complaints in 2020, drawing attention to what she called ongoing racial bias, that course changed. She claims that instead of having her concerns openly addressed, they were the subject of increasing scrutiny, which led to her termination.
| Category | Information |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Rehab Mohamed |
| Defendant | Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) |
| Verdict Awarded | $11.5 million (including $10 million in punitive damages) |
| Allegations | Racial discrimination and retaliation |
| Jury Verdict Date | December 2025 |
| SHRM Response | Denied wrongdoing, announced intention to appeal |
| Key Legal Point | SHRM’s own HR expertise used against it in court |
| Related Lawsuit | Pending disability discrimination case (service dog accommodation) |
| Industry Impact | HR credibility and internal fairness standards under increased scrutiny |
The internal contradictions this case revealed, in addition to the verdict, are what make it so illuminating. SHRM contended that just because it is an HR authority, it shouldn’t be subjected to harsher criticism. But the court made a different decision. SHRM had effectively raised the standard for its own behavior by positioning itself as a beacon of HR excellence. And in this instance, the jury thought it was insufficient.
Surprisingly, the investigator assigned to investigate Mohamed’s allegations lacked any significant experience with discrimination cases. He was only qualified for one training session, the specifics of which he couldn’t even remember. Sharing that moment during the trial struck a deep chord. It revealed a flaw in the very procedure that SHRM promotes in thousands of businesses.
This situation is somewhat similar to witnessing a firefighter’s own house burn down; an organization that was created to safeguard, instruct, and maintain standards is now dealing with the fallout from disregarding its own counsel.
A troubling narrative emerged when viewed through the prism of legal testimony. Mohamed’s last review, which was written right before she was fired, appeared to be intentionally critical. This stood in sharp contrast to her earlier assessments. It reflected an all too common pattern in retaliation cases: the sudden rewriting of positive records to support an exit.
The fact that SHRM called an all-team meeting to address the fallout from Mohamed’s complaint was even more worrisome. This strategy was later deemed seriously flawed by experts. Such approaches may feel more performative than protective in situations involving accusations of racial bias. It depicted a department that, in a situation that required nuanced handling, fell back on generic solutions.
The official position of SHRM is still unwavering. They stress their internal procedures, deny any wrongdoing, and intend to file an appeal. CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. reaffirmed the company’s dedication to ethical practices and publicly defended its integrity. But rather than being thoughtful, many people found the tone to be noticeably defensive.
Because SHRM has historically been trusted by the HR profession, this situation is especially important. For many practitioners, its recommendations provide frameworks for protecting employers and employees, shape policy, and impact decisions. This verdict seems to have shaken that trust, at least momentarily.
On top of the Mohamed ruling, there is currently another lawsuit pending. In a different case, a candidate who requested to bring a service dog for her Type 1 diabetes had her job offer revoked. When considered collectively, the two cases point to a pattern that raises troubling issues regarding SHRM’s internal policies regarding diversity, equity, and accommodation.
This incident serves as a crucial test of authenticity for companies that rely on SHRM for direction, making it more than just a warning story. Now, the issue is not only legal but also cultural: how can an organization regain trust after falling short of the very standards it helped create?
Credibility is valuable in a field that prioritizes impartiality, fairness, and worker welfare. That credibility has been earned over decades by SHRM. Even though it is only one case, this lawsuit has the potential to drastically lower its value.
Generally speaking, the HR sector is robust. It develops via criticism, adjusts after errors, and gets stronger via introspection. How SHRM is viewed going forward will depend on whether it decides to double down or actually learn from this experience.
In the end, the verdict covered more ground than just one employee’s experience. It served as a direct, public, and unquestionably human reminder that no organization, regardless of its level of experience, is exempt from the standards it upholds.