Jury Awards $400,000 to Job Applicant in SHRM Disability Accommodation Suit

Key points

• A jury in Alexandria, Virginia, ruled that SHRM failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act, awarding $400,000 in compensatory damages to plaintiff Fiona Torres.
• Torres alleged that SHRM revoked a June 2024 job offer for a senior specialist role in July after she requested to bring her medical service dog to work, which she claimed was necessary to detect blood-sugar changes due to her diabetes.
• SHRM argued in court filings that it had offered multiple alternative accommodations, including the use of continuous glucose monitoring systems, insulin pumps, and flexible break times for blood sugar checks.
• The verdict marks the second major employment-related liability for SHRM in less than a year, following an $11.5 million judgment in December for race discrimination and retaliation.
• SHRM stated it disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating appellate options, arguing that the ruling could undermine the 'interactive process' required by the ADA by forcing employers to accept an employee's exact preferred accommodation.

Background

This ruling follows a series of internal controversies at SHRM reported by Business Insider in 2025, including strict attendance policies, dress code memos, and critical remarks from CEO Johnny C. Taylor regarding employee performance. The current case highlights ongoing legal challenges for the organization in employment practices.

Why it matters

The verdict sets a potential precedent for how strictly employers must adhere to specific accommodation requests under the ADA, potentially impacting the 'interactive process' standard that allows employers to propose alternative solutions. It also signals continued legal vulnerability for SHRM, a major industry body, in employment discrimination and disability cases.

What to watch

SHRM is expected to appeal the $400,000 verdict, while the organization also continues to appeal a separate $11.5 million judgment from December. Legal observers will watch whether this ruling influences future ADA accommodation disputes nationwide.