SHRM’s second jury trial in less than a year kicked off Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia, after the HR giant failed for a second time to convince a federal judge to dismiss a discrimination claim.
The case, Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, stems from a job applicant’s lawsuit filed last December. The candidate alleged that she’d been offered a role as a senior specialist in the product management department in June 2024, but that SHRM had revoked the offer after she said she needed her service dog to accompany her to the office as a reasonable accommodation.
The worker said she needed her service dog to help her manage Type 1 diabetes — in particular, episodes of hypoglycemia, which have caused her life-threatening blackout episodes, according to her complaint.
“Before she had the assistance of her service dog, Ms. Torres blacked out approximately ten times a year,” the complaint described. “Since acquiring the service dog’s assistance eight years ago, she has had only one such incident.”
The worker sued SHRM for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act.
SHRM’s response
In July, SHRM filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff rejected the alternative reasonable accommodations proposed by SHRM and did not provide documentation or information linking her disability to the role’s essential functions.
SHRM argued the plaintiff herself was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process.
“While SHRM remained committed to working with [the worker] to identify a reasonable accommodation that would meet the legitimate needs of both parties, [she] instead adopted a ‘my way or the highway’ approach and refused to engage further with SHRM or to propose any alternative accommodations beyond her preferred option,” the HR giant wrote in its motion.
The court heard arguments from both parties on the motion in late August and, roughly two weeks later, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles denied the motion due to a genuine dispute of material facts.
In a public statement released Sept. 28, SHRM remained adamant that it did not violate the ADA and was not responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process.
“When [the plaintiff] requested an accommodation, SHRM did not say no; we followed proper procedure,” the organization said. “SHRM tried to understand [her] need for the accommodation and what reasonable accommodations were available that could permit her to perform the essential functions of the role she would be hired to fill. To that end, SHRM asked her to consult her own physician about whether alternative accommodations existed. This was a genuine good-faith attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution through an interactive process — and indeed an acceptance of her disability.”
“The ADA does not entitle any candidate or employee to his or her preferred accommodation, and participation in an accommodation process does not guarantee control over its outcome,” SHRM said.
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Notably, the court granted the plaintiff access to her service dog at trial this week, along with access to her smartphone in order to manage her glucose levels and leave to eat or drink as needed.
What HR can learn
Several elements of the dispute have been surprising, Ashley Herd, founder and CEO of the Manager Method and former co-host of the HR Besties podcast, told HR Dive. She has been watching the case since its filing, with interest as an expert in both employment law and HR.
For one, she expected SHRM to argue the service dog would present an undue hardship, possibly due to a colleague’s allergies, a term of their lease or some other issue. But while SHRM did cite undue hardship among its affirmative defenses in its answer to the worker’s complaint, it did not expand upon why and admitted it did not communicate concerns about the dog’s presence at the office, its effect on other workers, or how it would be a hardship.
Herd also expected the case to settle — especially after last year’s jury verdict of racial discrimination and retaliation against a former employee resulted in damages of $11.5 million. (SHRM is currently pursuing an appeal of the verdict.) SHRM is also in hot water with its liability insurance provider, which has argued it is not responsible for paying out that award, making for a litigious and reputationally damaging year.
Herd said that in her capacity as a podcast host, she heard from slews of HR professionals concerned about the value of their HR certification. Affiliate chapters of the organization distanced themselves in the wake of last year’s Mohamed v. SHRM decision.
When faced with the accommodation request, SHRM also allegedly pursued a different path than its own policies laid out, Herd noted; while a form should have been filled out and given to a designated HR person, SHRM instead brought the matter to the chief human resources officer, who did not consult the designated HR person, according to a plaintiff’s memorandum.
In court filings, SHRM reasoned this was because the seriousness of the matter warranted bringing in the CHRO. But “if you’re not following your policies and procedures, at the very best, you’re making your life more difficult if you do get to litigation,” Herd said.
At a base level, Herd said, “how you react matters so very much” when it comes to accommodation requests.
“Instead of saying, ‘What do we have to do?’” which makes people feel like their condition is an unpleasant roadblock, employers should reframe to a more open-minded, “What could we do? How could this work?”
Even the small elements of communication can be huge. SHRM’s written denial provided to the worker appeared in a court filing, Herd said, and the organization said it was denying the worker’s “preferred accommodation,” with “preferred” in italics.
“The communications, not surprisingly to me, very much read like a lawyer wrote that for them,” Herd said. “But … it feels condescending to the candidate, which can drive them to want to file an EEOC charge and lawsuit. It can also feel that way to a jury that’s deciding whether what they did was legal or not.”
