Colorado Jury Awards $11.5M in Rehab Mohamed v. SHRM Discrimination and Retaliation Case

Executive Summary and Key Facts:

Liability: The jury found SHRM liable for both racial discrimination and retaliation.

Damages Awarded:

• $1.5 million in compensatory damages

• $10 million in punitive damages

Plaintiff (Rehab Mohamed):

• Darold Killmer and Laura Wolf of Killmer, Lane & Newman LLP, a Denver-based civil rights firm.

Defendant (SHRM):

Represented by attorneys from Littler Mendelson, a leading national employer-side labor and employment law firm.

Background: Mohamed’s Role and Internal Complaints at SHRM

Rehab Mohamed began working at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 2016 as an e-learning specialist and later became an instructional designer. In January 2020, she was promoted to senior instructional designer under a new manager, Carolyn Barley. Mohamed’s lawsuit and court filings allege that Barley “systematically favored the white employees she supervised over their non-white colleagues,” subjecting Mohamed (a self-described “brown-skinned Egyptian Arab woman”) to excessive scrutiny and micromanagement. Examples include being forced to ghost-write emails for Barley, having Barley attend all her meetings, and Barley taking credit for her work. White colleagues reportedly received more independence and less oversight, and another Black colleague experienced similar treatment.

By mid-2020, Mohamed raised concerns internally about this treatment. On June 3, 2020, she made a formal complaint to Barley’s supervisor alleging racial discrimination. She escalated her complaints up the chain of command, including meetings with HR and direct outreach to SHRM’s CEO and Chief HR Officer. Mohamed alleges she voiced concerns about discrimination and retaliation “over a dozen times throughout the summer of 2020,” but no effective remedial action was taken. Instead, Barley allegedly retaliated by excluding her from meetings and projects and issuing harsher criticism.

In August 2020, SHRM management imposed an “inflexible and unrealistic” deadline on two major projects Mohamed was leading—a deadline not imposed on similarly-situated white colleagues. Mohamed requested more time or support, but was denied. Internal documents revealed that SHRM’s HR department prepared Mohamed’s termination paperwork on August 31, 2020, before the deadline had passed. On September 1, Barley terminated Mohamed’s employment, citing missed deadlines. Mohamed’s performance history showed consistently strong reviews, and a white teammate had missed deadlines without discipline. These facts supported Mohamed’s claims that her firing was retaliation for her complaints, not performance-related.

Legal Claims and Pre-Trial Proceedings

In 2022, Mohamed filed a lawsuit in federal court against SHRM, asserting racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She sought back pay, front pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and legal fees. SHRM denied the allegations, maintaining Mohamed was terminated for poor performance. Pre-trial rulings were significant: in October 2024, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher denied SHRM’s motion for summary judgment, finding Mohamed had presented enough evidence for trial. The judge noted the case was “messy” and questioned the integrity of SHRM’s internal investigation, which appeared to be a “sham.” The HR representative assigned to investigate never interviewed Mohamed and began drafting termination documents soon after her complaint.

The judge allowed Mohamed’s demand for punitive damages to proceed, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude SHRM “maliciously discriminated and retaliated.” SHRM’s attempt to limit references to its HR expertise during trial was rejected; the court ruled that SHRM’s asserted expertise was integral to the case context.

Trial Evidence and Testimony

The trial took place in early December 2025 in Colorado federal court, lasting about five days. Both sides presented evidence and witness testimony about the events of 2020 and SHRM’s handling of Mohamed’s complaints. Current and former SHRM officials, including CEO Johnny Taylor and HR investigator Mike Jackson, testified.

Mohamed’s case focused on showing that her race and complaints were the true reasons for her termination. Her attorneys highlighted her positive performance reviews and argued that the aggressive August 2020 deadlines were imposed after she spoke up about discrimination. Evidence showed HR began preparing her termination paperwork before fully investigating her complaint. Comparative evidence showed a white co-worker missed deadlines without discipline, suggesting selective enforcement. Mohamed’s exclusion from meetings after raising concerns was also highlighted.

SHRM maintained Mohamed’s termination was due to performance deficiencies, not complaints. Their witnesses asserted she was let go for missing project deadlines. The credibility of SHRM’s investigation was challenged; Mike Jackson admitted under oath that Mohamed’s case was the only discrimination complaint he had investigated, and he had minimal training. He also helped draft the email imposing Mohamed’s deadlines, acting as both investigator and participant.

CEO Johnny Taylor testified he was not personally involved in Mohamed’s termination, though evidence showed Mohamed had reached out to him. Taylor acknowledged SHRM’s mission includes advising on HR best practices, reinforcing the plaintiffs’ narrative about the irony of the situation.

Jury Verdict and Damages

After deliberating for half a day, the nine-member jury found SHRM liable for both racial discrimination and retaliation. On December 5, 2025, they awarded Mohamed $11.5 million in damages: $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. The jury’s punitive award was extraordinary for an employment case, reflecting a finding of willful or egregious conduct. Legal observers described the verdict as a “staggeringly high figure.” The disparity between SHRM’s public ethos and its internal handling of Mohamed’s complaint may have amplified the jury’s sense of wrongdoing.

The $1.5 million compensatory damages likely include back pay, lost future earnings, and compensation for emotional distress. The $10 million punitive component is designed to punish and deter. Federal law typically caps punitive damages in Title VII cases, but Mohamed’s parallel Section 1981 claim allowed the jury to exceed those caps. The verdict stands as a significant moment in employment law, sending a strong signal that even leading HR organizations are not above the law.

SHRM’s Response and Aftermath

After the verdict, SHRM publicly disputed the jury’s findings and announced plans to appeal. SHRM’s statement emphasized its confidence in its internal practices and its intent to challenge the result. CEO Johnny Taylor downplayed the verdict’s significance internally, calling it “just a blip in the history of SHRM.” Reactions in the HR and legal communities have been mixed, with some noting the irony and potential reputational fallout for SHRM.

Conclusion

The Rehab Mohamed v. SHRM case serves as a cautionary tale for employers, highlighting the importance of thorough and impartial investigations of employee complaints, consistency between stated values and actions, and the power of a jury to hold organizations accountable. The outcome reinforces that retaliation and discrimination claims will be judged on facts and evidence, regardless of an employer’s prestige or mission. For HR professionals, the verdict is a reminder that public reputation for “best practices” can become a double-edged sword in the courtroom.