SHRM Seeks a New Trial After $11.5M Jury Verdict
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has requested a new trial following a federal jury’s decision last year to award $11.5 million to a former employee in a case involving race discrimination and retaliation. In court filings submitted on Friday, SHRM argued that the verdict was influenced by inadmissible evidence and flawed jury instructions, which allegedly led to a judgment driven by “passion, prejudice or bias.”
The lawsuit, known as Mohamed v. SHRM, resulted in a damaging outcome for the prominent HR organization. SHRM asserted that the trial judge allowed inappropriate evidence and witness testimony, mishandled key phases of the trial, and denied motions to exclude prejudicial portrayals of SHRM as a “model employer.”
Claims of Prejudicial Evidence and Witness Testimony
SHRM’s new motion contends that the judge overseeing the case admitted testimony from individuals who should not have been allowed to testify. Among the contested items was hearsay testimony related to a different former SHRM employee who had made similar race discrimination allegations but did not personally testify in court. SHRM argued that this inclusion violated evidentiary rules and unfairly influenced the jury.
Another key point in SHRM’s argument involves a third-party witness who testified about SHRM’s treatment of the plaintiff. According to SHRM, this individual failed to complete required legal disclosures and should have been disqualified from participating in the trial.
Additionally, SHRM criticized the use of out-of-court notes and statements by another witness, claiming these documents were hearsay and should not have been admitted. SHRM maintains that these evidentiary errors cumulatively “poisoned” the jury’s perception of the organization.
The “Model Employer” Argument
A central theme in SHRM’s appeal is the use of the term “model employer.” SHRM said that although the phrase had appeared in its public programming in the past, it was irrelevant to the plaintiff’s specific claims and improperly influenced the jury. The organization argued that the plaintiff used the phrase to appeal to the jury’s emotions and moral judgment, rather than focusing on factual evidence.
“By portraying SHRM as a ‘model employer,’ Plaintiff improperly appealed to the jury’s emotions and moral judgment, creating a substantial risk that the verdict rested on perceived hypocrisy rather than the evidence,” the organization stated in its legal filing.
SHRM also noted that it had previously attempted to prevent the phrase from becoming part of the trial narrative, arguing that its inclusion introduced “unfair prejudice.”
Background of the Discrimination Case
The former employee who filed the lawsuit alleged that SHRM systematically favored White employees over non-White employees. In her 2022 complaint, she claimed that after she filed an internal complaint about discriminatory practices, SHRM’s HR staff collaborated with her supervisor to retaliate against her, including drafting termination documents before completing an investigation.
The jury ultimately sided with the plaintiff in 2025, awarding her $11.5 million in damages. The decision sent shockwaves through the HR community, with many viewing the verdict as a cautionary tale for employers about the importance of internal accountability and compliance.
SHRM Defends Its Record and Values
Despite the jury’s verdict, SHRM has consistently defended its organizational values and record. In a statement to media outlets, SHRM emphasized its long-standing commitment to workplace compliance, inclusion, and fairness.
“Discrimination and retaliation are fundamentally incompatible with our values, our policies, and our decades-long record of leadership in workplace compliance and inclusion,” the organization said. SHRM added that it believes the evidence presented at trial did not justify the jury’s substantial award.
SHRM reiterated that it respects the judicial process but remains confident that its newly presented legal arguments will demonstrate that the trial was compromised by procedural and evidentiary errors.
What Happens Next
If the motion for a new trial is granted, SHRM may have an opportunity to present its case again under revised conditions. Legal experts note that such motions face a high bar, as courts are generally reluctant to overturn jury verdicts without clear evidence of error or misconduct.
Attorneys representing the plaintiff have not responded to requests for comment on SHRM’s motion. Whether or not the court agrees to a new trial, the case has already made a significant impact on the HR industry, serving as a reminder of the legal and reputational risks tied to discrimination and retaliation claims.
This article is inspired by content from Original Source. It has been rephrased for originality. Images are credited to the original source.