SHRM Found Liable in Disability Accommodation Case
The jury ruling highlights the compliance risks employers face when evaluating requests for medical service animals.
Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Human Resources
Live Poll
Should employers be legally required to grant every specific accommodation requested by an employee?
An Alexandria jury found the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) liable for failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The verdict follows allegations that the organization revoked a job offer after the plaintiff requested to bring a service dog to work.
Why it matters
This case underscores the legal exposure companies face when denying specific accommodation requests, even when alternative support options are provided. It highlights the importance of formalizing the interactive process for disability accommodations to avoid litigation.
A jury awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages to a plaintiff after finding SHRM liable for disability accommodation failures. The verdict comes after a separate $11.5 million jury award against the organization in an unrelated race discrimination case in December 2025.
The players
Society for Human Resource Management
A major professional association that develops industry standards and certification programs for human resources personnel.
Fiona Torres
The plaintiff who alleged that her job offer was rescinded after requesting a disability accommodation.
The details
The plaintiff, Fiona Torres, alleged that SHRM revoked her job offer in July 2024 after she requested to bring a medical service dog to work for blood-sugar monitoring. While SHRM offered the plaintiff other accommodations, including continuous glucose monitoring system access, an insulin pump, and flexible breaks, the jury determined the firm failed to meet requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act.
Timeline
June 2024: SHRM extended a job offer to Fiona Torres.
July 2024: SHRM revoked the job offer following the accommodation request.
December 2025: A jury returned an $11.5 million verdict in an unrelated race discrimination case.
October 9, 2026: An Alexandria jury found SHRM liable for disability discrimination.
Market Landscape
This ruling follows a pattern of heightened legal scrutiny regarding employer-provided workplace accommodations. It clarifies the boundaries of the Americans with Disabilities Act when firms offer alternatives to a candidate's preferred request.
Employers should review their interactive process documentation to ensure all accommodation requests are evaluated against current legal standards. Operations leaders should consult with qualified counsel to verify if alternative support measures satisfy federal and state obligations.
The takeaway
The ruling emphasizes that providing standard benefits may not suffice if a specific accommodation is deemed medically necessary under the law. Operators should audit their current disability accommodation request workflows to ensure compliance with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and state-level mandates.
Further reading
For more on evolving compliance standards, visit our Human Resources section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Business Insider.
Live Poll
Should employers be legally required to grant every specific accommodation requested by an employee?
