The nation’s most prominent and influential human-resources trade association, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), is facing significant legal scrutiny after being sued by a woman who claims that the organization withdrew a formal employment offer once it discovered she relied on a medical service dog. The plaintiff, identified as Fiona Torres, filed her lawsuit on Tuesday in federal court, alleging that SHRM revoked her offer specifically because the organization did not wish to permit her service animal in its office facilities. Her legal complaint frames this decision as a violation of disability law and an affront to equal employment opportunities.
According to the lawsuit, Torres lives with diabetes, a condition that requires constant monitoring of her blood glucose levels to avoid dangerous highs and lows. Her trained service dog is capable of detecting fluctuations in her blood-sugar levels with a speed and accuracy that surpasses even the most sophisticated commercial glucose monitors currently available. This makes the dog a medically necessary part of her daily life and, by extension, an essential form of assistance that enables her to perform routine tasks safely and effectively. Despite this, SHRM, she alleges, refused to allow her to bring the animal into the office as part of her reasonable accommodation request.
In its public response, SHRM maintained that it had acted entirely within its legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal statute designed to protect workers with disabilities from discrimination and ensure that they receive fair and reasonable accommodations. The organization asserted that it had “fully complied” with the ADA by proposing what it described as an alternative accommodation that would address Torres’s medical needs without involving the presence of her service dog in the workplace.
This new lawsuit arrives amid a challenging period for SHRM, coming less than two weeks after a jury ordered the organization to pay $11.5 million in damages in an unrelated race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. That earlier case, brought by former SHRM employee Rehab Mohamed, involved allegations that the organization held a Black and Egyptian staff member to stricter performance standards than her white colleagues, resulting in a substantial verdict against the association.
In the current dispute, Torres’s complaint details a timeline beginning in June 2024, when SHRM extended an offer for her to join its product management department in Alexandria, Virginia, as a senior specialist. She accepted the offer but was informed the following month, in July, that it had been rescinded—allegedly because she requested to bring her medical service animal to work as part of her accommodation plan. Torres stated that the accommodations SHRM did offer—such as permission to keep snacks, water, and an insulin pump at her desk—fell short of what she required to manage her disability effectively and safely. In her words, she was fully prepared to start her new job and contribute to the organization, only to be told that her disability—and the presence of her trained assistance dog—had changed the company’s perception of her employability.
The court filing cites an email SHRM allegedly sent to Torres denying her accommodation request and concluding that “it does not appear there are any reasonable accommodations that would allow you to perform the essential functions of the role.” This statement, according to Torres’s legal team, illustrates the organization’s unwillingness to consider accommodations involving her service animal and represents a key piece of evidence supporting their claim.
When approached for comment about the allegations, SHRM spokesman Eddie Burke declined to discuss specific details of the pending lawsuit, saying that the organization was still reviewing the legal documents. He issued a statement reaffirming SHRM’s commitment to legal and ethical compliance under the ADA, stating that the association “supports the ADA and is actively committed to helping employees through fair, respectful, and legally compliant accommodation processes.” Burke further emphasized that SHRM had consulted external counsel and “met all its obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to Fiona Torres.”
Responding on behalf of her client, attorney Lori Kisch characterized SHRM’s alleged behavior as deeply ironic. She noted that SHRM’s central mission is to educate and guide human-resources professionals on employment law compliance, including issues surrounding disability rights and workplace accessibility. In her view, an organization at the forefront of HR ethics and legal training should not only understand but exemplify the requirements of the ADA. Kisch accused SHRM of acting with what she described as a “reckless indifference” toward the very statutes it teaches others to follow.
Torres’s suit follows the recent pattern of legal challenges surrounding SHRM’s internal practices. The previous discrimination case against the organization—filed by Mohamed—resulted in a jury verdict holding SHRM accountable for $11.5 million in damages. Despite that outcome, SHRM has announced its intent to appeal, asserting that the earlier decision “does not reflect the facts, the law, or the truth of how” it conducts its business operations.
For many observers, the Torres case raises complex and consequential questions about how major institutions that champion workplace inclusivity and compliance with employment law navigate their own internal practices. The dispute underscores the tension between public commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion and the practical realities of implementing accommodations for employees with disabilities—particularly when those accommodations involve the physical presence of trained service animals. The litigation may, therefore, become a highly visible test of SHRM’s credibility in the field it has long sought to lead.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/hr-giant-shrm-faces-new-discrimination-lawsuit-2025-12
