Irony in the HR Suite: SHRM Suffers Second Major Court Defeat in Under a Year Over Disability Accommodation

By Global Workplace News Desk
Updated: March 2026

Main Facts

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)—an organization that brands itself as “the trusted authority on all things work” and sets the gold standard for human resources professionals globally—has suffered its second major employment-related jury trial defeat in less than a year.

In a verdict delivered on Friday, a federal-level jury ruled that SHRM violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA). The legal action stemmed from the organization’s refusal to permit a prospective employee to bring her service dog to the workplace as a reasonable accommodation for her severe Type 1 diabetes.

The jury ordered SHRM to pay the plaintiff, identified in court documents as the claimant in Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, $400,000 in compensatory damages. Notably, the jury declined to award punitive damages, finding that while SHRM’s actions violated federal and state anti-discrimination laws, they did not rise to the level of malicious or reckless indifference required for punitive penalties.

This latest courtroom setback strikes at the heart of SHRM’s credibility. As a prominent membership association providing guidance, compliance frameworks, and certification to hundreds of thousands of HR professionals, the organization is frequently looked to for definitive answers on how to navigate complex disability accommodations. Finding itself on the losing end of an ADA lawsuit underscores a profound disconnect between the organization’s public-facing advisory role and its internal operational practices.

Chronology of Events

To fully understand how a routine hiring process spiraled into a damaging federal lawsuit, it is necessary to examine the timeline of Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management:

• June 2024: The plaintiff is officially offered a position as a senior specialist within SHRM’s product management department.
• Mid-2024 (Pre-Employment Dialogue): During the onboarding and accommodation request phase, the applicant asks to bring her service dog on-site to help manage her life-threatening Type 1 diabetes. While SHRM proposes and permits certain alternative accommodations—such as access to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and allowing food and drinks at her desk—the organization refuses to permit the service dog into the facility.
• Mid-2024 (Rescission of Offer): Because of the impasse regarding the service dog and the perceived inability to accommodate the applicant’s specific request, SHRM rescinds the job offer.
• December 2025: Following failed administrative remedies, the plaintiff files a formal federal complaint in the U.S. District Court, detailing how sudden blood glucose drops can lead to catastrophic hypoglycemic episodes that mechanical devices cannot always catch in time.
• July 2025 – August 2025: Amid ongoing legal preparations, SHRM undergoes structural and branding overhauls, renaming and folding its inclusion conferences into broader corporate strategies, while simultaneously dealing with the fallout of a massive $11.5 million racial discrimination verdict from late 2024.
• Friday (Trial Conclusion): After a rigorous jury trial, the panel returns a unanimous verdict finding SHRM liable for disability discrimination under both the ADA and the VHRA, awarding the plaintiff $400,000 in compensatory damages.
• Saturday Following the Verdict: SHRM issues a sharp public critique of the verdict, calling the decision dangerous for precedent and announcing its intention to explore all available appellate options.

Supporting Data and Legal Arguments

The core legal battle in Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management revolved around the definitions of “reasonable accommodation” and the limits of the ADA’s interactive process.

The Plaintiff’s Position

The plaintiff argued that while technological solutions like continuous glucose monitors are useful, they are inherently limited when dealing with aggressive, life-threatening hypoglycemic episodes. In her December 2025 complaint, she pointed out that sudden losses of consciousness are frequently triggered by rapid blood glucose level fluctuations that mechanical monitors simply cannot detect with enough advance warning to prevent danger.

Her legal counsel, led by Mary Kuntz—a partner at the employment law firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch (KCNF)—argued that the service dog provided specialized, real-time early alerts that no digital device or desk snack could replicate. Crucially, Kuntz noted during the trial that SHRM failed to demonstrate any undue hardship that would have justified barring the animal from the premises.

The Jury’s Findings

The jury reached a nuanced verdict, siding with the plaintiff on several critical counts while offering partial nods to SHRM:

1. Found Liable: SHRM ran afoul of the law by rescinding the job offer because of its need to accommodate her disability, failing to provide a reasonable accommodation, and discriminating against her based on disability under the VHRA.
2. Found in Favor of SHRM: The jury agreed with SHRM that the organization did not rescind the job offer due to the applicant’s disability alone (implying the operational disagreement over the dog played a central role), and it found that SHRM did engage in the interactive process in good faith, even if that process ultimately yielded a flawed conclusion.

Financial and Operational Impacts

For SHRM, the $400,000 judgment, while substantially smaller than the $11.5 million verdict handed down in Muhamed v. SHRM just months prior, compounds a deeply troubling financial and public relations trajectory. The organization is currently locked in bitter post-trial battles over its previous losses, including an appeal in the Tenth Circuit and a separate lawsuit filed by its own liability insurance carrier in July 2025, which is attempting to block coverage for millions in punitive damages.

Official Responses and Stakeholder Statements

The fallout from the Torres verdict has prompted starkly contrasting statements from the plaintiff’s legal team and SHRM’s executive leadership.

Plaintiff’s Legal Counsel Speaks Out

Mary Kuntz underscored the irony of the situation in statements to the press, emphasizing that the laws protecting disabled workers apply universally—even to institutions that write the textbooks on human resources compliance.

"The law requires employers to look seriously at an employee’s actual needs when an accommodation is requested," Kuntz said in a KCNF news release. "This obligation applies to every employer, including the organization so many others rely on for guidance on these questions."

Furthermore, Kuntz pointed out the stark lack of legal justification presented by the defense during proceedings: "SHRM demonstrated no hardship at all and provided no accommodation that would meet our client’s need for advanced alerts. The jury saw this and held them responsible."

KCNF Managing Partner Elaine Fitch doubled down on the firm’s commitment to protecting the judgment, vowing that her team would "vigorously defend" the jury’s decision should SHRM move forward with an appeal.

SHRM’s Defense and Pushback

SHRM released a strongly worded statement on Saturday following the verdict, framing the decision as an existential threat to how employers and employees negotiate accommodations nationwide. The organization announced it would actively evaluate all reasonable appellate options.

"Accommodation is meant to be a dialogue, not a dictation," SHRM’s statement read. "The Americans with Disabilities Act requires cooperation from both sides. An applicant’s preference for one specific accommodation does not strip an employer of its right to establish reasonable operational boundaries or to propose alternative, effective solutions."

SHRM’s defense team also challenged the medical necessity of the service dog, highlighting that the animal lacked an explicit doctor’s prescription and that the plaintiff was occasionally separated from the animal during travel or exercise routines.

The organization warned that allowing this verdict to stand could create a dangerous legal precedent: "If today’s verdict becomes precedent for the principle that an employer must always capitulate to an employee’s exact preferred accommodation, the interactive process the ADA was built around ceases to function."

Broader Implications for Employers and the HR Profession

The implications of Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management extend far beyond the balance sheets of a single non-profit association. For human resource professionals, employment attorneys, and corporate executives, the case serves as a high-profile case study in the friction between accommodation preferences and operational control.

1. The Limits of "Alternative Accommodations"

Employers frequently assume that offering an accommodation (such as a desk snack, a modified schedule, or a digital monitor) fulfills their legal obligation under the ADA. However, the Torres verdict highlights that alternative accommodations must be effective in addressing the specific, documented limitations of the employee or applicant. If an alternative falls short of mitigating the core risk—such as sudden, life-threatening hypoglycemic blackouts—courts and juries may reject it as insufficient.

2. The Danger of Rigid Operational Boundaries

While SHRM argued for its right to establish reasonable operational boundaries, the jury ultimately decided that those boundaries yielded to unlawful discrimination when they resulted in the outright rejection of a qualified candidate without a true showing of undue hardship. Employers are reminded that convenience, generalized workplace policies (such as strict "no pets" rules that fail to carve out exceptions for verified service animals), or administrative friction do not constitute legal undue hardship.

3. Reputational Toll on Advisory Bodies

Perhaps the most significant macro-level takeaway is the blow to institutional authority. When an entity that positions itself as an infallible compliance guide stumbles repeatedly in basic employment law compliance, it invites intense scrutiny from its membership base. Coupled with its ongoing legal battles regarding racial bias, retaliation, and insurance coverage disputes, SHRM is navigating a turbulent chapter marked by cultural, operational, and legal recalibration.

As SHRM pivots its annual conferences toward specialized frameworks like "All Things Work" and credentialing academies, this latest verdict serves as a stark reminder to the entire industry: mastering the theory of human resources is vastly different from executing its legal and ethical obligations on the ground. Whether the appellate courts validate SHRM’s warnings about the interactive process or uphold the jury’s protection of worker accommodations, Torres v. SHRM will remain a landmark cautionary tale for employers navigating disability law in the modern workplace.