On December 6, 2025, the Society for Human Resource Management the world’s largest HR professional organization, was hit with an $11.5 million verdict for racial discrimination and retaliation. The irony is devastating. The hypocrisy is stunning. And the lessons are urgent.
The moment I heard about the SHRM verdict, I felt something I’ve felt too many times in my career: a painful mix of validation and exhaustion. Validation because the system, for once, worked. Exhaustion because we’re still fighting battles that should have been won generations ago.
$11.5 million. That’s what a jury determined it costs when the very organization that teaches HR professionals how to protect employees systematically fails to protect one of their own.
Let me be clear about what happened here. Rehab Mohamed, an Egyptian Arab woman and senior instructional designer at SHRM, raised concerns about racial discrimination. She reported that her supervisor systematically favored white employees. She was rated a “Solid Performer” and “Role Model” in her performance reviews. She did everything right.
And then, allegedly within days, possibly the same day, of filing a retaliation complaint, SHRM began drafting her termination paperwork. Before conducting a meaningful investigation. Before following their own best practices. Before applying the very standards they sell to corporations around the world.
U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher didn’t mince words: “This is a messy employment discrimination case.”
Messy. That’s one word for it. I’d use another: typical.
So what is the weight of speaking up?
Here’s what most executives don’t understand: when an employee comes forward with allegations of discrimination or retaliation, they’re not making a light decision. They’re not being dramatic. They’re not looking for attention or trying to cause trouble.
They’re making an impossible choice between their livelihood and their dignity.
I’ve witnessed it. I’ve lived it. I’ve sat across from mothers who tell me the only memory they have from their pregnancy ten years ago is their boss saying, “If you can’t handle a 9 to 5, then maybe you should focus on being a mother.” That memory lives rent-free in their minds, coloring every professional decision they’ve made since.
When employees speak up about discrimination, they typically:
- Have evidence. They’ve documented everything because they know what’s coming.
- Have experienced it repeatedly. This isn’t their first encounter; it’s just the first time they’ve felt they had no other choice.
- Know the risks. They understand that retaliation is coming, even though it’s illegal.
I’m yet to see an industry where someone has spoken up about discrimination and stayed in their role without consequence. They leave the business. They get moved to another department. The atmosphere becomes so unbearably awkward that they choose to go. That’s not a coincidence. That’s the pattern.
The special betrayal from HR.
The SHRM case cuts deeper because of who they are. This is the organization that:
- Certifies hundreds of thousands of HR professionals
- Publishes best practices for workplace investigations
- Hosts conferences, teaching companies how to handle discrimination claims
- Positions itself as “the trusted authority on all things work”
And yet, when it mattered most, they allegedly:
- Set artificial deadlines immediately after a discrimination complaint
- Drafted termination documents before investigating
- Failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry into serious allegations
- Allowed a manager with minimal investigation training to handle a complex discrimination case (Mike Jackson testified this was the only discrimination claim he’d ever investigated)
Judge Gallagher noted that a jury could reasonably conclude SHRM acted with “reckless indifference” to Mohamed’s rights under federal law. The jury awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. SHRM plans to appeal, maintaining the decision doesn’t “reflect the facts, the law, or the truth of how SHRM operates.”
But here’s what the verdict does reflect: HR professionals are not immune to the same biases, blind spots, and failures they’re supposed to help others avoid. In fact, in my experience, HR departments often fall into the same trap they’re meant to prevent. Their role is to support and protect the business, yes, but in doing so, they sometimes inflict the very harm they’re supposed to be negating.
I’ve seen it. I’ve witnessed HR professionals dismiss valid concerns because acknowledging them would be inconvenient for the company. I’ve watched them invalidate employee experiences at the expense of protecting the business, instead of finding immediate remedies and solutions.
The intersection that makes it worse
As a Black woman and a mother, I can tell you: the discrimination isn’t simple. It’s layered. It’s intersectional.
When you’re a woman, you face assumptions about your commitment and competence. When you’re a mother, people make decisions on your behalf, deciding you won’t want to travel, won’t want to take on challenging projects, won’t want to stay late. When you’re Black or brown, you’re subjected to closer scrutiny, harsher criticism, and fewer second chances.
And when you’re all three? The weight is crushing.
You hear things like:
- “She’s a mother, she won’t want extra responsibility.”
- “She can be emotional” (read: when she advocates for herself, she’s labeled difficult)
- “She’s not a cultural fit” (code for: she doesn’t look or sound like us)
These aren’t innocent mistakes. There is no such thing as “innocent” discrimination. Even subtle acts of exclusion, being left off email threads, not invited to key meetings, having your ideas credited to others, compound over time into career-limiting patterns.
In Mohamed’s case, she reported being micromanaged while witnessing white colleagues miss deadlines without consequence. A white coworker even provided testimony that she had missed deadlines and faced no discipline. That’s not a coincidence. That’s disparate treatment based on race.
What must executives do now?
If you’re a leader, a C-suite executive, a board member, or anyone with decision-making authority, this verdict should shake you awake. Here’s what you need to do:
1. Believe employees when they speak up.
Stop leading with skepticism. When someone raises a discrimination or retaliation claim, your default position shouldn’t be defense of the accused or the organization. It should be: “We need to take this seriously and investigate thoroughly.”
2. Investigate properly.
SHRM allegedly began drafting termination paperwork before investigating Mohamed’s claims. That’s not just bad practice; it’s evidence of retaliation. When someone files a complaint, immediately:
- Pause any pending performance actions
- Engage qualified, impartial investigators
- Document every step of your process
- Ensure the complainant isn’t subjected to changed conditions, excluded from meetings, or given sudden “performance concerns.”
3. Train your people managers, ESPECIALLY new supervisors.
Many discrimination cases begin when a new supervisor takes over. Inexperienced managers may not realize that:
- Micromanaging some employees while giving others autonomy can evidence bias
- Making assumptions based on protected characteristics (race, gender, parental status) is discriminatory
- Granting trust unevenly may support claims of unlawful discrimination
Every supervisor needs robust training on implicit bias, performance management, documentation, and how to create equitable conditions for all team members.
4. Don’t tolerate high performers who discriminate.
I’ve seen too many scenarios where a talented employee who brings in revenue or produces excellent work is protected despite discriminating against or harassing their colleagues. That is completely unacceptable. No amount of skill or results justifies harm to other employees.
If someone can’t manage a team without bias, they shouldn’t be managing at all.
5. Understand that legal knowledge isn’t enough.
All HR professionals should have legal knowledge relevant to their jurisdiction. But legal compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. You also need:
- Emotional intelligence to understand the human impact of your decisions
- Cultural competency to navigate diverse workplaces
- Courage to speak truth to power when leadership is wrong (this is key)
- Humility to acknowledge and address your own biases
6. Create genuine accountability.
During the SHRM trial, it emerged that there were at least two other discrimination complaints against the organization, one settled in 2018, and another pending from 2021. SHRM denied wrongdoing in those cases, too.
That’s a pattern, not an anomaly. When multiple employees raise similar concerns, leadership must look inward and ask: “What are we missing? What’s broken in our culture?”
7. Accept corrections with grace.
Over the years, I’ve had difficult conversations with colleagues about their bias and discrimination. Some have responded with defensiveness and anger. But I’ve also encountered people who said, “Tope, thank you. You’re the first person who’s ever told me about my own bias. This was shocking, but I appreciate it.”
Those people? They changed. They grew. They became better leaders.
If someone tells you you’ve discriminated against them or that your behavior has caused harm, resist the urge to immediately defend yourself. Listen. Reflect. Ask questions. Consider that they might be right.
Why this matters beyond SHRM
This verdict sends a critical message: organizations with specialized knowledge in employment law and HR best practices will be held to a higher standard. As employment lawyer Alice K. noted, “The optics are bad because they’ve held themselves out as an authority on best practices.”
If you market yourself as an expert, you’ll be judged accordingly. If you train others on discrimination prevention, your own house better be in order.
But beyond SHRM, this case should matter to every organization because discrimination cases are costly, not just financially, but reputationally and culturally. They damage employee morale, erode trust, and signal to talented diverse candidates that your workplace isn’t safe.
More importantly, they cause real human suffering. Mohamed’s career was disrupted. Her professional reputation was questioned. She had to relive her trauma through years of litigation. That pain doesn’t go away with a verdict, even a victorious one.
Here is where we can change.
We’re at a moment of reckoning in the corporate world. Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are being rolled back; SHRM itself dropped “equity” from its DEI framework, a move that alienated many members and employees. There’s a vocal contingent claiming we’ve gone “too far” with workplace protections and should pull back.
This verdict proves the opposite: we haven’t gone far enough.
When the premier HR organization in the world can’t protect an underrepresented woman from race-based discrimination and retaliation, we have a long way to go.
I encourage every employee experiencing discrimination to speak up. I know it’s terrifying. I know the risks are real. But your voice matters. Your experience is valid. And increasingly, the courts are listening.
For executives: you have a choice. You can dismiss cases like SHRM’s as isolated incidents, convince yourselves that your organization is different, and maintain the status quo. Or you can use this as a wake-up call to audit your practices, listen to your employees, address systemic issues, and become the kind of leader who prevents discrimination rather than defends against it after the fact.
The cost of inaction - $11.5 million, in SHRM’s case—should make the choice clear.
Real change requires us to either work through our biases or teach people that their subtle acts of exclusion and blatant discrimination are unacceptable. It requires holding people accountable, even when they’re high performers. It requires empathy for people whose lived experiences are different from our own.
If we want to change the world, if we want to have a real, tangible impact, we have to start by believing people when they tell us they’ve been harmed, and then doing everything in our power to make it right.
The jury in Colorado has spoken. Now it’s time for the rest of corporate America to listen.
Resources for Further Action
For Employees:
- EEOC: How to File a Charge of Discrimination
- National Employment Lawyers Association - Find employment attorneys in your area
- A Better Balance - Legal support for workplace discrimination, especially for parents and caregivers
For Employers and HR Professionals:
- EEOC: Best Practices for Employers
- EEOC: Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Foundational law prohibiting employment discrimination
- Section 1981 - Civil rights statute with no damages cap for race discrimination claims
Documentation and Investigation Training:
- Ensure your HR team receives regular training on conducting impartial, thorough investigations
- Implement clear protocols that separate investigation from decision-making
- Document all steps, findings, and rationale for employment decisions
- Consider third-party investigators for sensitive or complex cases
The Bottom Line: If you’re unsure whether your organization’s practices meet legal and ethical standards, consult with experienced employment counsel. The cost of prevention is always less than the cost of litigation, and immeasurably less than the human cost of discrimination.
Tope Ajala is a global cultural strategist, former Global Chief Inclusion & Impact Officer at Ogilvy, and host of “Life to a Teee” podcast. She works with executives and organizations to build inclusive cultures where all employees can thrive.