“This is a messy employment discrimination case,” the earlier opinion denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment stated in Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), No. 1:22-CV-06125-RM-SKC (D. Colo.). That’s just what this case turned out to be, with a jury award of $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a whopping $10 million in punitive damages against SHRM.

SHRM, known in the industry for its leadership in all things HR, lost in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on December 5, 2025, after not practicing what it preaches and profoundly bungling a workplace investigation of racial discrimination and retaliation.

In 2016, SHRM hired Mohamed, an Egyptian American woman, as an instructional designer. Her performance reviews stated that she was a solid performer and role model in all criteria. In 2020, she was promoted to senior instructional designer, under a new supervisor, Barley, a white woman. Six months into her new position, Mohamed shared frustrations to a senior mentor that Barley was micromanaging her work and excluding her from team meetings. Mohamed told her mentor that she noticed Barley treated her white counterparts differently.

From the outset, SHRM’s investigatory response was lacking. Just a few of the missteps included:

• The company hosted a confrontational meeting between the complainant and respondent regarding the allegations, before an investigation was instituted.
• The assigned HR investigator testified that he had never conducted a workplace discrimination investigation before and only attended one training session on racial discrimination investigations.
• The investigator played an active role in ghostwriting emails to the complainant from the respondent and escalating the dispute, demonstrating that the investigator was unable to be impartial.

Mohamed ultimately filed a retaliation complaint as well. Discovery showed that the same day Mohamed filed her retaliation complaint, the company drafted her termination documents. Mohamed was terminated for not meeting a deadline, despite another white coworker testifying that she was never disciplined or coached for missing a deadline.

This case is an acute illustration of the value that independent investigators can bring to workplace investigations. Despite being a leader in the HR field, SHRM’s own workplace investigation did not follow the best practices that it teaches. Sometimes, it is pay now or pay later. An independent attorney-led investigation can build credibility and trust, mitigate risk, and minimize disruption. Our investigators are trained and experienced. Handling workplace investigations appropriately at the outset may mitigate litigation expense or the risk of an adverse verdict. It may also contribute to employee retention and foster a positive workplace culture. Mohamed v. SHRM serves as a cautionary tale of the negative impact that a poorly managed workplace investigation can have on your organization.