HR giant ordered to pay $400,000 to job applicant who wanted to bring a service dog to work
iStock A jury found SHRM liable for mishandling a job applicant's request to bring a service dog to work.
SHRM said it offered alternative accommodations and will evaluate appellate options.
In 2025, SHRM was hit with an $11.5 million verdict in an unrelated discrimination case.
It is appealing.
A jury on Friday found the nation's largest HR group liable for mishandling a job applicant's request for a disability accommodation .
The Society for Human Resource Management, or SHRM, lost on all counts and was hit with a verdict of $400,000 in compensatory damages for failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act, according to a legal filing posted Tuesday.
No punitive damages were awarded.
The case was tried in Alexandria, Virginia, where SHRM is headquartered.
In a statement posted on SHRM's website, the HR group said it disagrees with the jury's verdict and will evaluate appellate options.
"This case carries implications well beyond SHRM," the group wrote.
"If today's verdict becomes precedent for the principle that an employer must always capitulate to an employee's exact preferred accommodation, the interactive process the ADA was built around ceases to function.
We are evaluating all appellate options to protect not just our own position, but the operational rights of HR departments and employers nationwide." Mary Kuntz, a lawyer for the plaintiff, praised the verdict in a statement.
"The law requires employers to look seriously at an employee's actual needs when an accommodation is requested," she wrote.
"That obligation applies to every employer, including the organization so many others rely on for guidance on these questions." In the complaint, plaintiff Fiona Torres alleged that SHRM offered her a role as a senior specialist in its product management department in June 2024, then revoked the offer that July because she wanted to bring her medical service dog to work.
5News aggregated this summary from the outlet’s public feed. The full article, with all the context, is on www.businessinsider.com — the content belongs to Business Insider.
