What Is the SHRM Lawsuit?
The SHRM lawsuit is a pair of separate federal employment cases against the Society for Human Resource Management. SHRM is the trade group that certifies HR professionals. One case was filed by a former employee and one by a job applicant. Neither case is a class action or multidistrict litigation.
Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management, No. 1:22-cv-01625 in the District of Colorado, alleges race discrimination and retaliation. Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, No. 1:25-cv-02360 in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleges a failure to accommodate a service dog. A third, older case is described in the comparison section below.
Why Was the SHRM Lawsuit Filed?
The SHRM lawsuit was filed in two parts because two different people say SHRM mistreated them in two different ways. Rehab Mohamed, a former instructional designer, says a white supervisor favored white colleagues and that SHRM fired her after she complained about it.
Fiona Torres, who has Type 1 diabetes, says SHRM withdrew a job offer after she asked to bring her service dog to work. Both plaintiffs argue that SHRM should have known better because it teaches other employers how to avoid these claims.
SHRM disputes both accounts. It says Mohamed was not discriminated against and that it offered Torres reasonable alternatives, including a glucose monitor and food and water at her desk.
What Harms Does the SHRM Lawsuit Allege?
The harms the SHRM lawsuit alleges fall into four distinct categories, split across the two cases. Mohamed v. SHRM covers race and color discrimination and retaliation. Torres v. SHRM covers failure to accommodate and disability discrimination.
Race and Color Discrimination
Race and color discrimination is treating an employee less favorably because of their race or skin color, which federal civil rights law prohibits in employment.
Mohamed alleged that her supervisor held her to higher standards than white employees and favored white colleagues. Mohamed, who her lawyers say is Black and Egyptian, brought the claim under federal civil rights law. SHRM's appeal says the jury was told to find for her if race played a part. SHRM argues the law requires race to be the cause.
Retaliation
Retaliation is an employer punishing an employee for reporting discrimination, usually by firing, demoting or otherwise disadvantaging them.
Mohamed says she raised her concerns more than a dozen times in the summer of 2020. Those reports reached SHRM's chief executive and head of HR. She was fired on September 1, 2020. SHRM's 2022 answer said she was let go for performance problems. The jury found SHRM liable on both the discrimination and retaliation claims.
Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation
A failure to accommodate claim says an employer refused a reasonable adjustment. The adjustment would let a qualified person with a disability do the job.
Torres says SHRM refused to let her bring a service dog that alerts her to dangerous blood sugar changes. The jury agreed that SHRM failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under both the ADA and the Virginia Human Rights Act. SHRM says the dog was never prescribed by a doctor and that it proposed other accommodations.
Disability Discrimination
Disability discrimination is an employer taking an adverse action, such as withdrawing a job offer, because of an applicant's disability.
Torres also claimed that SHRM rescinded the offer because of her disability itself. The jury rejected that framing. It found instead that SHRM rescinded the offer because it would have had to accommodate her. It did not find that SHRM failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process.
What Is the Current Status of the SHRM Lawsuit?
The current status of the SHRM lawsuit differs by case. Mohamed v. SHRM is on appeal after the trial court denied a new trial. Torres v. SHRM has a jury verdict and no reported post-trial ruling or appeal as of October 20, 2026.
Mohamed v. SHRM (Race Discrimination and Retaliation)
A federal jury in Colorado found SHRM liable after a five-day trial that ended on December 5, 2025. The trial court denied SHRM's motion for a new trial in April 2026, and SHRM then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Colorado (Judge Gordon P. Gallagher) |
| Case Number | 1:22-cv-01625 |
| Plaintiff | Rehab Mohamed, former SHRM instructional designer |
| Defendant | Society for Human Resource Management |
| Verdict | $1.5 million compensatory and $10 million punitive damages, December 5, 2025 |
| Status | On appeal to the Tenth Circuit; opening brief filed in summer 2026 |
SHRM's opening brief asks the Tenth Circuit to reverse the new-trial denial. Alternatively, it asks the court to reduce the damages "significantly." Its liability insurer has separately sued, arguing it does not owe coverage for the award.
Torres v. SHRM (Service Dog Accommodation)
A federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia returned its verdict on October 9, 2026, after a trial that began on October 6. The judge had denied SHRM's motion for summary judgment before trial, finding a genuine dispute of material fact.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) |
| Case Number | 1:25-cv-02360 |
| Plaintiff | Fiona Torres, former job applicant |
| Defendant | Society for Human Resource Management |
| Claims | Americans with Disabilities Act and Virginia Human Rights Act |
| Verdict | $400,000 compensatory damages, no punitive damages |
| Status | Verdict returned; SHRM says it will evaluate all reasonable appellate options |
No post-trial motion or notice of appeal had been reported when this page was last updated. A reader should check the court docket for the current entry.
How Much Was SHRM Ordered to Pay in the Lawsuit?
SHRM was ordered to pay about $11.9 million across two jury awards in the lawsuit: $11.5 million in Mohamed v. SHRM and $400,000 in Torres v. SHRM. Neither amount has been paid or finalized, because both cases remain open to appeal.
The Mohamed award splits into $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, and the Torres award is compensatory only. Appeals can reduce or erase a verdict, so the final figures may differ.
Business Insider reported that the median federal race discrimination verdict tracked by Westlaw in a seven-year period ending in 2021 was $150,000. The largest in that dataset was under $7 million, which is why commentators called the Mohamed figure a "nuclear verdict."
No settlement has been reported in either case. A private mediation in the Mohamed case was reported for October 6, 2025, and no docket filing afterward showed an agreement.
SHRM Lawsuit Updates
Here are the latest SHRM lawsuit updates, covering new court filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. As of October 2026, the Mohamed race discrimination appeal and the Torres service dog case remain in active pretrial litigation with no settlement announced. The full timeline below covers every verified development since the first case was filed.
Full SHRM Lawsuit Timeline
Jury Awards $400,000 in Torres v. SHRM
A federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia found that SHRM failed to give Fiona Torres a reasonable accommodation. The finding covers the ADA and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The jury awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. SHRM said it fundamentally disagrees with the verdict and will evaluate all reasonable appellate options.
Torres v. SHRM Goes to Trial
Jury trial in Torres v. SHRM began in the Eastern District of Virginia on October 6, 2026. The court had already denied SHRM's motion for summary judgment and encouraged the parties to consider settling.
SHRM Files Its Tenth Circuit Brief in Mohamed
SHRM filed its opening brief in the Mohamed v. SHRM appeal at the end of July 2026 and refiled it with procedural amendments in early August. The brief argues the jury instruction on causation was wrong, that some testimony was hearsay, and that the $10 million punitive award was unconstitutionally large.
SHRM's Insurer Sues Over the Mohamed Award
SHRM's liability insurance provider filed its own lawsuit in July 2026, arguing it is not responsible for paying the punitive damages in the Mohamed verdict. Public reports have not named the insurer or the court.
Court Denies SHRM a New Trial in Mohamed
The district court denied SHRM's February motion for a new trial in April 2026. The judge called SHRM's arguments unconvincing in the face of the evidence presented at trial, and SHRM said it would appeal.
SHRM Moves for a New Trial
SHRM asked the Colorado court in February 2026 to set aside the Mohamed verdict. The motion argued the judge gave an erroneous jury instruction and admitted testimony from another employee that should have been excluded.
Fiona Torres Sues SHRM in Virginia
Fiona Torres filed Torres v. SHRM in the Eastern District of Virginia in December 2025, less than two weeks after the Mohamed verdict. The complaint alleges SHRM offered her a senior specialist job in June 2024. It says SHRM rescinded the offer in July 2024 after she asked to bring her service dog.
Colorado Jury Awards $11.5 Million in Mohamed v. SHRM
After a five-day trial, a Colorado jury found SHRM liable for race discrimination and retaliation against Rehab Mohamed. It awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. SHRM's chief executive called the verdict a "blip" in a video to staff, and SHRM said it would appeal.
Private Mediation Reported in Mohamed v. SHRM
A legal podcast reported that the Mohamed parties attended a private mediation on October 6, 2025. No court filing afterward showed a settlement, and the case went to trial in December.
SHRM Asks the Court to Bar Evidence of Its HR Expertise
SHRM filed a motion in September 2025 asking the Colorado court to bar evidence of its HR expertise. The motion targeted Rehab Mohamed's argument that SHRM is an expert in HR best practices. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher denied it, writing that SHRM's asserted expertise was integral to the circumstances of the case and could not reasonably be excluded.
SHRM Rescinds Fiona Torres's Job Offer
SHRM withdrew the senior specialist offer it had extended to Fiona Torres in June 2024, according to her complaint. The complaint quotes an email saying no reasonable accommodation appeared to allow her to perform the essential functions of the role.
SHRM Answers the Mohamed Complaint
SHRM responded to Mohamed v. SHRM on August 29, 2022, denying race discrimination and attributing the plaintiff's firing to performance problems. It asked the District of Colorado to dismiss the case.
SHRM Settles the Ruffa Accessibility Class Action
SHRM settled Ruffa v. SHRM, a separate Title III class action filed by Deaf HR professionals in the Northern District of California. Reports put the payment at about $221,000, plus commitments to caption content and provide sign language interpreters.
Deaf HR Professionals File Ruffa v. SHRM
Tiffany Ruffa, Kathryn Canfield and Isidore Niyongabo filed Case No. 4:21-cv-05349 against SHRM in the Northern District of California on July 20, 2021. The class action complaint alleges SHRM denied Deaf members sign language interpreters, captioning and timely transcripts.
SHRM Fires Rehab Mohamed
SHRM ended Rehab Mohamed's employment on September 1, 2020, after she had worked there since 2016. Her 2022 complaint ties the firing to the discrimination concerns she raised during the summer of 2020.
How Has SHRM Responded to the SHRM Lawsuit?
SHRM has responded to the SHRM lawsuit by denying wrongdoing in both cases and promising to contest the results. After the Mohamed verdict, SHRM said the claim had "no merit." It said it would appeal "to the highest courts in the land." Its chief executive, Johnny C. Taylor Jr., testified that he had no involvement in the firing.
After the Torres verdict, SHRM said accommodation is meant to be a dialogue. It said Torres "ultimately was the one who stopped participating in the interactive process." It also noted that no physician prescribed the dog. The jury did not find a failure to engage in the interactive process.
Reports from discovery in Mohamed also disclosed two other discrimination matters involving SHRM staff, one settled in 2018 and one pending from 2021. SHRM denied wrongdoing in both.
How Does the SHRM Lawsuit Compare to Ruffa v. SHRM?
The SHRM lawsuit described on this page differs from Ruffa v. SHRM, an older and separate case that has already settled. Ruffa was a class action about accessibility for Deaf members and customers, not an employment case. Its facts do not overlap with Mohamed or Torres.
| Case | Court | Subject | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed v. SHRM (this page) | D. Colo., 1:22-cv-01625 | Race discrimination and retaliation | $11.5M verdict, on appeal |
| Torres v. SHRM (this page) | E.D. Va., 1:25-cv-02360 | ADA and Virginia failure to accommodate | $400K verdict, Oct. 2026 |
| Ruffa v. SHRM (separate) | N.D. Cal., 4:21-cv-05349 | Title III accessibility for Deaf members | Settled June 2022 |
The Ruffa complaint alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Its settlement required captioning for new pre-recorded content and interpreters at main conference sessions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the SHRM lawsuit about?
The SHRM lawsuit is about two federal employment cases against the Society for Human Resource Management. Mohamed v. SHRM alleges race discrimination and retaliation, and Torres v. SHRM alleges a failure to accommodate a service dog under the ADA.
Is the SHRM lawsuit a class action?
No. The SHRM lawsuit is not a class action or multidistrict litigation. Mohamed v. SHRM and Torres v. SHRM each have one plaintiff, and the only SHRM class action, Ruffa v. SHRM, settled in 2022.
How much did SHRM lose in the lawsuit?
SHRM lost two jury verdicts in the lawsuit totaling about $11.9 million. A Colorado jury awarded $11.5 million in Mohamed v. SHRM, and a Virginia jury awarded $400,000 in Torres v. SHRM, though both remain open to appeal.
Did SHRM appeal the lawsuit verdict?
Yes. SHRM appealed the Mohamed verdict to the Tenth Circuit after the trial court denied a new trial. SHRM said it would evaluate all reasonable appellate options after the Torres verdict, and no appeal had been reported as of October 20, 2026.
Is Ruffa v. SHRM part of the SHRM lawsuit?
No. Ruffa v. SHRM is a separate 2021 class action about accessibility for Deaf members, and it settled in 2022. The SHRM lawsuit on this page covers Mohamed and Torres, which are unrelated to that case.