SHRM Responds to Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has formally responded to a disability discrimination lawsuit filed in a U.S. District Court in Virginia. The civil case, Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, was initiated on December 6, 2025, and accuses SHRM of violating federal and state laws by rescinding a job offer after a candidate requested to bring her trained medical service dog to work.
Fiona Torres, the plaintiff, contends that the organization unlawfully withdrew her offer for a senior specialist role in SHRM’s product management department. According to the lawsuit, Torres, who has Type 1 diabetes, informed SHRM after receiving the offer that she would require her service dog to accompany her in the workplace as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Virginia Human Rights Act.
Details of the Allegations
Torres claims that her medical alert service dog plays a critical role in her diabetes management. The dog is trained to detect and alert her when her blood sugar levels are dangerously high or low, a condition that previously led to her blacking out around ten times annually. She asserts that the service dog provides a level of detection that surpasses technological alternatives such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM).
The lawsuit alleges SHRM “brazenly disregarded its statutory obligations” by denying her the requested accommodation and ultimately rescinding her offer of employment. Torres argues that this action constitutes a violation of both the ADA and Virginia state law.
SHRM’s Defense and Alternative Accommodations
In a 22-page response, SHRM denied any wrongdoing and refuted allegations of discrimination. The organization stated that Torres did not demonstrate a necessity for a service dog to perform the essential functions of the job. According to SHRM’s court filings, the hiring team reviewed the information provided by Torres and concluded that her request for a service animal was not substantiated as essential to her role.
SHRM emphasized that they had offered multiple alternative accommodations to support Torres’ health needs. These included allowing her to use her CGM device at work, take breaks to monitor her blood sugar levels, use her insulin pump as needed, and consume food or beverages at her workstation.
The organization also pointed out that Torres had described instances in which she was separated from her service dog, such as during grooming appointments or when entering environments she deemed unsafe for her dog. SHRM argues that these instances suggest her ability to manage without the service animal in certain situations.
Context of Previous Legal Challenges
This lawsuit follows another legal dispute involving SHRM. In a recent case, Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management, a Colorado jury found SHRM liable for racial discrimination and retaliation. The jury awarded the plaintiff $11.5 million in damages, highlighting previous scrutiny of SHRM’s employment practices.
While SHRM denies the current allegations, the organization remains under legal and public scrutiny. The outcome of Torres’ lawsuit could have broader implications for how companies interpret and apply ADA requirements and determine reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
Broader Implications for Employers
The Torres case underscores the importance of clear policies and consistent practices in accommodating employees with disabilities. Employers must carefully evaluate whether requested accommodations are reasonable and essential to job performance while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws.
Legal experts suggest that the case could serve as a benchmark for future disputes involving service animals in the workplace. It also illustrates the challenges that arise when medical needs intersect with workplace logistics and company policies.
As the litigation proceeds, HR professionals and organizations will likely pay close attention to the court’s interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and how employers can meet their legal obligations without compromising operational requirements.
This article is inspired by content from Original Source. It has been rephrased for originality. Images are credited to the original source.
