After the SHRM Verdict, Five Lessons for Employers

 

Sometimes the biggest workplace stories are the ones that hit closest to home for HR professionals. A recent jury verdict involving the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is one of those moments, not because of who the defendant was, but because the issues are ones every employer faces.

A Colorado jury awarded $11.5 million to a former SHRM employee on race discrimination and retaliation claims, as first reported by Business Insider. The plaintiff alleged unequal treatment, escalating pushback after raising concerns, and termination soon after complaining internally. SHRM maintained it acted properly and that the decision was based on performance.

After the ruling, SHRM publicly stated that it strongly disagrees with the verdict, believes it acted with integrity and transparency, and will appeal to the highest courts. Employers do not need to take a side to learn from what happened. The themes in this case surface in workplaces of every size.

1. Retaliation Risk Can Overshadow Everything Else

Once an employee reports discrimination, timing becomes a critical part of the story. Any adverse action shortly after a complaint must have clear, well documented support that predates the protected activity. Retaliation cases often succeed because the sequence of events looks suspicious in hindsight rather than because of proven intent.

2. Performance Management Must Be Even and Documented

The plaintiff described shifting expectations and differential oversight. SHRM emphasized missed deadlines and repeated extensions. Employers should clearly communicate expectations, enforce them consistently, and document legitimate business reasons for any exception. Perceived unevenness fuels litigation.

3. Investigations Must Be Thorough and Credible

SHRM asserted that HR interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, and facilitated mediation. The plaintiff described the process differently. For employers, a credible investigation is prompt, impartial, confidently documented, and clearly communicated. It is also the employer’s best opportunity to resolve issues early and to demonstrate fairness later.

4. Public Values Shape Jury Expectations

SHRM’s visibility as an HR authority made the case more notable, but this dynamic applies broadly. When employers promote values like fairness, inclusion, or accountability, juries expect internal practices to reflect those commitments. Public messaging becomes a lens through which decisions are judged.

5. Juries Focus on Credibility and Consistency

The plaintiff said she raised concerns with multiple leaders. SHRM said it investigated, extended deadlines, recommended mediation, and ultimately terminated the employee for incomplete work. Juries often evaluate not just the facts, but whether the employer’s actions appear steady, documented, and believable.

Takeaways for Employers

1. Document consistently and contemporaneously.
2. Review any post complaint decision through a retaliation lens.
3. Apply performance expectations evenly and explain business driven deviations.
4. Conduct investigations that are timely, structured, and impartial.
5. Ensure that public values align with internal practices.

The Bottom Line

Whether this verdict stands on appeal or not, the underlying lesson will not change. Employers must take internal complaints seriously, document clearly, investigate thoroughly, and avoid retaliation at all costs. Trials expose process weaknesses with brutal clarity. Prevention is always cheaper than a courtroom education.