A recent $11.5 million jury verdict against the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) sends a strong message to employers: who conducts your investigations matters. The case, Mohamed v. SHRM, resulted in $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages, spotlighting SHRM’s mishandling of a workplace discrimination complaint.
For organizations that routinely rely on internal HR teams to investigate discrimination or retaliation claims, this verdict serves as a costly cautionary tale.
When the HR Authority Gets It Wrong
On December 5, 2025, a Colorado federal jury found SHRM liable for both race discrimination and retaliation in a lawsuit brought by Rehab Mohamed, an Egyptian-American instructional designer. Despite SHRM’s claims that her termination was due to performance issues, including missed deadlines and incomplete projects, the jury ruled in Mohamed’s favor.
Raising the stakes, the judge allowed the jury to consider SHRM’s own position as the nation’s leading authority on HR best practices. The court ruled that SHRM’s asserted expertise was “integral to the circumstances of this case and cannot reasonably be excluded.” This gave the jury the opportunity to examine whether SHRM’s actions aligned with the standards it promotes to others.
Investigation Missteps That Cost Millions
At trial, several critical flaws in SHRM’s internal investigation came to light:
- An untrained investigator. Although the HR professional assigned to the matter had experience in employee relations and had had his investigation findings reviewed by a more senior HR employee, he had never conducted a discrimination investigation. He had attended one training session months earlier, but could not recall anything he learned from it.
- Compromised neutrality. The investigator played an active role in ghostwriting emails for the accused supervisor and also participated in drafting Mohamed’s termination paperwork. These actions blurred the line between a neutral fact-finder and an internal advocate.
- Suspicious timing. Records showed that SHRM began drafting Mohamed’s termination documents on the same day she filed a retaliation complaint. This timing reinforced the appearance of retaliatory intent.
These missteps created the impression of an investigation that was not only flawed but also potentially designed to support a predetermined outcome. Commentary on the case notes indicate that the timing and dual roles of the investigator gave the jury a basis to view the process as retaliatory or even a sham. These are precisely the circumstances that can (and did) lead to punitive damages in discrimination verdicts.
What a Legally Defensible Investigation Looks Like
According to the EEOC’s 2024 and 2025 enforcement guidance, along with legal commentary, a defensible workplace investigation must meet four core standards:
- Prompt – Employers should act quickly once a complaint is raised.
- Impartial – The investigator must be neutral and free from conflicts of interest.
- Trained – Investigators must understand anti-discrimination laws and investigation protocols.
- Thorough and documented – The process should include interviews with all relevant parties, review of documents and communications, and documentation of steps taken and findings reached.
SHRM’s approach failed to meet some of these criteria. The investigator lacked training and independence, and the process was not clearly documented. The lack of separation between investigation and disciplinary action has been identified as a major factor in why SHRM’s actions appeared egregious to the jury.
The Hidden Risk of Internal Investigations
It is common for mid-sized organizations to rely on their internal HR teams for investigating complaints. However, this strategy can come with significant legal and reputational risks:
- Perceived bias – HR staff often work closely with leadership and may not be seen as neutral, especially when the accused is a manager or senior employee.
- Limited training – Many HR professionals wear numerous hats and are not adequately trained in discrimination law, credibility assessments, or the documentation standards courts expect.
- Punitive exposure – Juries are more likely to award punitive damages when investigations appear retaliatory or lack objectivity.
In Mohamed v. SHRM, these risks became a reality. What may have begun as an internal performance concern escalated into an $11.5 million verdict, driven, in part, by the employer’s handling of the investigation.
How Ablin Law Investigates Differently
Ablin Law offers independent, attorney-led investigations designed to meet legal standards and withstand scrutiny. Our approach helps clients protect their organizations while demonstrating a neutral, good-faith response to workplace concerns.
Key elements of our investigation model include:
- Experienced investigators – Investigations are led by employment attorneys who have extensive experience with complex discrimination and retaliation matters. We do not assign first-timers to high-risk complaints.
- Independent and impartial process – As an external firm, Ablin Law provides the neutrality (and appearance of neutrality) that in-house investigators often lack. This helps avoid conflicts of interest and reassures employees and stakeholders that company takes the matter seriously and that the process is fair.
- Structured and thorough methods – We develop an investigation plan, conduct interviews, make evidence-based credibility determinations, review relevant records, and prepare a defensible written report.
- Attorney-client privilege when appropriate – When attorneys investigate complaints, it may strengthen an organization’s position that the investigation is privileged, while still providing clear documentation that the employer responded appropriately.
Our goal is to investigate complaints in a neutral, unbiased manner, which may ultimately reduce legal exposure for organizations.
Practical Takeaways for Employers After Mohamed v. SHRM
This case highlights several important steps employers should take now:
- Train internal investigators. Ensure that HR staff assigned to investigations are properly trained and understand both legal standards and investigative best practices.
- Know when to use external help. Consider bringing in a neutral third-party investigator, especially for complaints involving senior leadership, allegations based on protected categories, or prior allegations of bias.
- Separate roles and responsibilities. Keep the investigation process distinct from those involved in disciplinary decisions. This helps demonstrate fairness and avoid the appearance of bias.
Mohamed v. SHRM makes it clear: the quality and independence of your investigations are not just HR concerns. They can create legal and reputational risks that must be managed with care.
Recent Comments