The organization that defines HR best practices, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), is facing a major crisis following a devastating legal defeat. On December 5, 2025, a federal jury in Colorado found SHRM liable for racial discrimination and retaliation against former employee Rehab Mohamed, awarding her a total of $11.5 million in damages ($1.5 million compensatory, $10 million punitive).
This verdict arrives on the heels of internal culture concerns and has ignited a fiery debate among HR professionals: What happens when the standard-setter fails to meet its own standards, what does that mean for the credibility of the entire HR industry, and are professional certifications and associations losing their influence?
The Failure to “Walk the Talk”: Reputational Backlash and the C-Suite Response
The case hinged on claims that Rehab Mohamed, an Egyptian woman, experienced discrimination and was ultimately terminated after formally complaining to management. Key testimony exposed a devastating gap between SHRM’s public mission and its internal practices.
The trial revealed critical flaws in SHRM’s internal HR processes. The employee assigned to investigate Mohamed’s compliant, Mike Jackson, revealed he had minimal training and was concurrently involved in drafting her termination paperwork—a clear conflict of interest.
Business Insider reported the organization even attempted to block the plaintiff from entering evidence that SHRM is an expert in HR practices—an attempt to avoid being judged by its own standards—which Katie Gaebel, Ph.D., noted on LinkedIn was essentially saying: “do as I say, not as I do.”
Angela Cheng-Cimini, Former CHRO at Harvard Business Publishing, states the situation casts a “long, unfortunate shadow” on SHRM’s reputation:
“HR professionals cannot credibly stand as the conscience of the organization and the stewards of culture if we do not ‘walk the talk.’ ”
The reaction from SHRM leadership further amplified the controversy. Business Insider also noted that SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor addressed employees internally, calling the $11.5 million ruling “a blip in the history of SHRM” and instructing staff to avoid speaking to the media.
Furthermore, in a statement, SHRM said it plans to appeal the decision. “Today’s decision does not reflect the facts, the law, or the truth of how SHRM operates. We have acted with integrity, transparency, and in full alignment with our values and obligations.”
This dismissal of a severe legal finding is damaging the organization’s credibility, particularly among its members. As Cheng-Cimini warns, leadership’s “unwillingness to take responsibility exacerbates the severe reputational damage that has already been inflicted.”
The reputational damage is critical. As one LinkedIn commentator, Natasha Oilar, MScM, SPHR, SHRM-CP, lamented, the situation highlights a severe “branding problem” for SHRM involving “credibility issues… loss of membership confidence, value perception, and relevance.”
The Legal Precedence: Higher Stakes for Experts
Legally, this outcome sets a new mark for accountability. Amanda Czepiel, US Country Manager and Head of Content at Brightmine, emphasizes that because of its status as an HR leader, organizations like SHRM “can be held to a higher standard when faced with such claims. This decision opens the door for juries and potentially regulators to hold professional associations accountable as both employers as well as organizations that role model and influence across the industries.” The message is clear: promoting values without embodying them is a costly liability.
The impact is seismic for the wider HR industry. Another LinkedIn commentator, Rod Samra, MBA, SPHR, stated, the verdict is a “signal to reassess our own HR processes, especially regarding internal investigations, handling discrimination claims, and ensuring our DEI initiatives have legal grounding and practical fairness.”
4 Actionable Takeaways for HR Leaders
The most critical takeaway from the SHRM case is that HR integrity must be built into verifiable processes. Both Czepiel and Cheng-Cimini advise that this is the moment for every HR function to audit its own house and ensure compliance is airtight.
- Eliminate Flaws in Internal Investigations
The testimony revealed a severe lack of training and clear impartiality. To prevent similar exposure, HR must:
- Ensure Impartiality: Never use investigators who are simultaneously involved in the employment action (like drafting termination paperwork). Invest in adequate training for all investigators and ensure speed and fairness are prioritized.
- Mitigate Retaliation Risks
Taking adverse action soon after a complaint is filed—as was alleged in the SHRM case—is highly risky. HR teams must proactively protect themselves by:
- Audit Documentation: Scrutinize any adverse action taken soon after a complaint is filed. Ensure everything is documented as it happens and before making a decision, ask yourself whether the decision would look “fair to an outsider.”
- Standardize and Unify Performance Management
Inconsistent standards—allowing some employees to extend deadlines while punishing others—can easily be interpreted as discrimination. HR must:
- Apply Standards Evenly: Apply all performance metrics, deadlines, and expectations evenly across all employees. If exceptions are made, ensure they are clearly documented and not applied arbitrarily, which can create a liability.
- Bridge the Trust Gap and “Walk the Talk”
The overall reputational damage stems from the gap between SHRM’s public mission and its private actions. HR’s role is to close this gap by demonstrating authenticity:
- Practice What You Preach: HR professionals must practice what they preach. Consistency between public values and internal actions is essential to restore employee confidence.
- Be Transparent About Processes: Check your internal processes to ensure they truly align with the values you promote publicly and be open about how you handle complaints.
A Total Reboot?
Many in the industry feel this lawsuit highlights that certification alone no longer guarantees competence or ethical practice. As Jennifer Gonzalez-McWilliams argued on LinkedIn, the focus should shift to “prioritizing competence, commitment, and the way people genuinely show up for others, not just the credentials they carry.”
For SHRM, the path to recovery—which will be hindered by a prolonged legal appeal—requires what Cheng-Cimini calls a “deep soul-searching” and a “total reboot.” The verdict is a brutal, expensive reminder that HR’s first role is to govern itself with unquestionable integrity.