A Colorado jury rendered a verdict on a calm December morning in 2025 that caused HR departments to react in remarkably similar ways: disbelief, uneasiness, and a somber sense that something fundamental had changed. The Society for Human Resource Management, which has long positioned itself as the benchmark for workplace equity, was the defendant.
Beyond resolving a conflict between an employer and a former employee, the $11.5 million verdict for racial discrimination and retaliation accomplished more. It put a mirror in front of an organization that instructs others on how to handle performance, look into complaints, and guard against prejudice, and it inquired as to whether the organization followed its own principles.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Rehab Mohamed |
| Defendant | Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) |
| Allegations | Racial discrimination and retaliation |
| Verdict Date | December 5, 2025 |
| Damages | $11.5 million total ($1.5M compensatory, $10M punitive) |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Colorado |
| Defendant’s Position | Denies wrongdoing; appeal announced |
| Why It Matters | Scrutiny of internal HR practices at a leading HR authority |
A pattern that many HR professionals immediately recognize was described by Rehab Mohamed, an instructional designer hired in 2016. The arrival of a new supervisor causes meetings to become selective, oversight to tighten, and the tone of feedback to change. She claimed that the system that ought to have shielded her turned into the one that drove her out when Mohamed voiced concerns within the company.
The timeline was important. Following complaints, there was increased scrutiny, “non-negotiable” deadlines, and a termination that came without a formal plan for performance improvement. In this case, the sequence was especially telling because jurors often read timing like tea leaves.
Observers were uneasy not only with the result but also with the testimony’s process. The internal investigator admitted to having little experience with discrimination cases and having only finished rudimentary training just prior to the alleged incidents. That might raise questions in any workplace. It became crucial in a company that was founded on HR expertise.
Records revealed that the investigator provided management with written communications that subsequently bolstered the dismissal. It is rarely wise to conduct an investigation while also influencing the record, and in this instance, it was especially detrimental, greatly diminishing the appearance of impartiality the jury had anticipated.
Another layer was added by performance reviews. Mohamed’s work was commended in earlier evaluations, which even highlighted his leadership abilities. Then the story abruptly shifted. Reviews that felt retrofitted and were written more to justify an exit than to guide improvement were cited by critics. This is a practice that many HR leaders caution against because it undermines trust.
I recall thinking about how hazy the distinction between choreography and documentation can be after reading one exchange regarding those reviews.
SHRM contended that the verdict misinterpreted the facts and that performance problems existed before the complaint. Jurors were given a different account, however, one in which policies were in place in theory but applied inconsistently in reality. That difference proved expensive for a company that publishes playbooks on “bulletproof investigations.”
The majority of the award was made up of punitive damages. The message here seemed particularly clear: expertise raises expectations. Juries save those for behavior they wish to discourage generally. You inherit a higher bar if you assert authority.
There has been a markedly mixed response from HR circles. The jury’s willingness to hold a powerful institution accountable was praised by some. Others quietly expressed concern that the most well-known advocate in the profession had turned into a case study of what not to do. Both responses are possible.
Additionally, this case revived earlier discussions regarding leadership tone. Previous disputes at SHRM regarding internal communications, dress codes, and attendance policies had already spurred discussion about culture. The lawsuit provided fresh context for those discussions, bridging the gap between style and content in a way that seemed especially important.
The lessons are extremely applicable to employers who are closely observing. Investigations need skilled personnel. Roles need to be clearly defined. Reality, not strategy, should be reflected in documentation. Additionally, every decision made after an employee files a protected complaint is examined through that prism, frequently with far greater rigor than managers anticipate.
Additionally, there is a forward-looking perspective that seems especially advantageous. The decision might force companies to make more significant investments in investigator training, escalation path clarification, and bias audits of performance systems. When compared to the alternative, those investments are surprisingly inexpensive.
Aspects of the case may still be reviewed by appeals courts, as SHRM has stated that it will appeal. However, the impact on one’s reputation is already influencing discussions, regardless of the legal outcome. Rebuilding credibility after it has been questioned takes conscious work.
The positive conclusion is that this is an opportunity for the profession to grow. HR has changed by facing difficult realities in the past, improving procedures, and recommitting to justice with noticeably greater rigor. Even though this case is painful, it presents another opportunity to accomplish that.
The field as a whole stands to gain if the organization that provides training to others reacts by improving its own procedures, making investigations incredibly effective, incredibly robust, and incredibly dependable. Consistently implementing accountability is still one of the most creative ways to advance workplace culture.
