An employment-related verdict involving the Society for Human Resource Management has drawn national attention after a Colorado jury awarded a former employee $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiff claimed that she experienced racial discrimination by a supervisor who she said favored white employees and marginalized employees of color.

She alleged that she raised concerns repeatedly to SHRM leadership, including the CEO and the head of HR, but that after doing so she was excluded from meetings and opportunities and ultimately terminated under what she described as an unrealistic, selectively applied performance deadline.

Evidence at trial also highlighted shortcomings in SHRM’s internal investigation process, including testimony that the investigator had conducted only one investigation and had minimal formal training.

SHRM has stated that it intends to appeal.

The award is notable not only because of the size of the verdict but also because of the defendant: SHRM occupies a prominent role in shaping HR practices and compliance guidance nationwide.

The jury’s finding has prompted discussion about how even well-resourced organizations with sophisticated HR structures can face significant exposure if internal complaint processes break down or retaliation is perceived.

The jury concluded that SHRM engaged in both discrimination and retaliation, and that the evidence supported one of the more substantial verdicts issued against an HR-focused employer in recent years.

For employers, the case serves as a reminder that day-to-day handling of employee concerns carries as much weight as formal policies.

Even robust written procedures cannot insulate an organization if investigations are inconsistent, communications are unclear, or adverse actions appear connected to complaints.

As a result of this verdict, employers may want to review how internal concerns are raised and addressed, how investigations are documented, and whether escalation pathways are clear to both employees and managers.

Strengthening these processes can reduce the risk of retaliation claims and improve defensibility if disputes arise.