In a legal development that puts the world’s largest HR professional organization in the spotlight, a Colorado federal judge has denied the Society for Human Resource Management’s (SHRM) motion for summary judgment in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former Black Egyptian employee.

U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ruled that a jury should evaluate claims by Rehab Mohamed, who alleges she was fired after opposing her supervisor’s preferential treatment of white workers.

The allegations

Mohamed, who worked as a senior instructional designer at SHRM, claims that her supervisor, Carolyn Barley, systematically discriminated against non-white employees. According to the lawsuit, after Mohamed complained about being micromanaged and excluded from meetings, she was terminated under the pretext of missing project deadlines. Mohamed had previously been rated as a “Solid Performer” or “Role Model” in all criteria.

Key points in the judge’s decision

Calling it a “messy employment discrimination case,” Gallagher’s 13-page order highlighted several crucial factors that warranted a jury trial:

The timing of inflexible deadlines imposed on Mohamed shortly after she raised discrimination complaints
Potential evidence that SHRM began drafting termination documents the same day Mohamed complained about retaliation
Testimony from colleagues who witnessed similar disparate treatment of non-white workers, including testimony that missed deadlines were commonplace and had never been a disciplinary issue

“A reasonable jury could conclude that defendant discriminated and retaliated against Mohamed when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Mohamed,” Gallagher wrote in his opinion.

The judge was particularly critical of SHRM’s handling of the internal investigation, noting that the organization put forward no facts indicating that it ever investigated Mohamed’s complaint. (As an aside, case background shows the HR representative responsible for investigating Mohamed’s complaint also helped Mohamed’s manager draft emails regarding project deadlines, calling into question the objectivity of any such investigation.)

Moreover, the court allowed Mohamed’s request for punitive damages to proceed, suggesting that a jury could reasonably conclude SHRM acted with “reckless indifference” to her rights under federal law.

Takeaways from the case

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of proper documentation and thorough investigation of discrimination and retaliation complaints. The judge’s emphasis on the timing of the termination documentation and the quality of the internal investigation highlights the critical need for transparent and well-documented HR processes.