A jury should decide whether the Society for Human Resource Management maliciously engaged in race discrimination, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Based on the facts alleged, a reasonable jury could conclude that the HR organization discriminated and retaliated against a former employee, the court said, denying SHRM’s request to dismiss the claims (Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management). SHRM told HR Dive it is prepared to vigorously defend the claims.
Bias allegations
The plaintiff, a former employee, sued the association in 2022. She said she first complained internally that her supervisor “systematically favored” White employees over non-White employees.
HR was looped in and assisted the supervisor with communications with the employee, according to court documents. Among other things, an HR representative allegedly helped the manager draft an email instructing the employee to finish two projects by the end of the month.
The employee then complained of retaliation. Quickly after — the parties disputed whether it was that same day or within the next two days — HR allegedly began drafting her termination documents before fully investigating her claims.
The court’s order is not clear on whether the plaintiff met the deadline, but SHRM fired her once it passed. She sued, alleging discrimination and retaliation, and requesting punitive damages.
SHRM asked the court to dismiss the claims, saying it fired the employee for failing to meet deadlines. The employee, however, pointed to her most recent performance review, which rated her as a “Solid Performer” or “Role Model” on all criteria and raised no concerns about deadlines. One of the plaintiff’s White teammates also offered a declaration that she had missed deadlines and was not disciplined for it.
Judge weighs in
“This is a messy employment discrimination case,” Judge Gordon Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado wrote in his order denying SHRM’s request for summary judgment.
The organization put forward no facts indicating that it engaged in a meaningful investigation of the employee’s retaliation complaint, the judge said. “A jury could reasonably conclude that the investigation was a sham in view of, for example, [the HR representative’s] failure to discuss [the employee’s] retaliation complaint with her and his involvement in drafting the email setting deadlines that led to both the retaliation complaint and termination.”
The judge appeared to put particular emphasis on that latter point. “Defendant appears to admit that [the HR representative] began drafting these documents the same day or two days after [the employee] made the retaliation complaint he was responsible for investigating,” he wrote. “Defendant is a HR membership organization that trains people on how to do HR tasks.”
Ultimately, the employee provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that SHRM’s use of seemingly neutral deadlines was retaliatory, he said.
The judge also allowed the employee’s claim for punitive damages to proceed, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that SHRM maliciously discriminated and retaliated against the employee with reckless indifference to her rights. Specifically, the judge pointed to the allegation that HR “provided [the manager] cover with a flawed investigation and orchestrated [the employee’s] termination in concert with [the manager].”
SHRM’s general counsel, Hanton Walters, told HR Dive the organization denies the claims. In a statement, Walthers said “SHRM believes the plaintiff’s case is without merit and is prepared to defend it vigorously.”
Employer takeaway
Much of the judge’s order focused on the employee’s retaliation claim and SHRM’s alleged lack of evidence to defeat that claim, specifically documentation of its performance management process and its investigation.
HR should prioritize careful and thorough documentation — and train managers to do the same, a speaker told attendees at SHRM’s annual conference this summer.
Performance management should include coaching, offers of support and, if needed after those steps, consequences, she said; and all of those steps should be well documented. The same goes for internal investigations, attorneys told SHRM attendees during a previous conference.
