SHRM Faces Disability Trial Over Service Dog Accommodation Claim

A federal jury trial involving the Society for Human Resource Management began Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia, after the organization faced a discrimination lawsuit from a job applicant who alleged SHRM revoked a senior specialist offer after she requested a service dog accommodation for Type 1 diabetes.

The case, Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, was filed last December and centers on allegations that SHRM violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

According to the complaint, the applicant said her service dog helps detect and manage hypoglycemia episodes that previously caused life-threatening blackout events. The complaint stated the applicant had experienced about 10 blackouts per year before receiving assistance from the dog.

"Before she had the assistance of her service dog, Ms. Torres blacked out approximately ten times a year," according to the complaint.

"Since acquiring the service dog’s assistance eight years ago, she has had only one such incident," according to the complaint.

SHRM argued in court filings that the dispute resulted from the applicant declining alternative accommodations proposed by the organization. In July, SHRM asked for summary judgment, but U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles denied the request after finding disputed facts remained.

"While SHRM remained committed to working with [the worker] to identify a reasonable accommodation that would meet the legitimate needs of both parties, [she] instead adopted a ‘my way or the highway’ approach and refused to engage further with SHRM or to propose any alternative accommodations beyond her preferred option," SHRM wrote in its motion.

In a Sept. 28 public statement, SHRM maintained that it followed the required accommodation process and did not violate disability rights laws. The organization said it sought information about possible alternatives and attempted to continue discussions.

"When [the plaintiff] requested an accommodation, SHRM did not say no; we followed proper procedure," SHRM said.

SHRM also argued that employees and applicants are not guaranteed their preferred accommodation under the ADA.

"The ADA does not entitle any candidate or employee to his or her preferred accommodation, and participation in an accommodation process does not guarantee control over its outcome," SHRM said.

At trial, the court allowed the plaintiff to bring her service dog, use her smartphone to manage glucose levels, and take breaks to eat or drink when needed. Ashley Herd, founder and CEO of the Manager Method and former co-host of the HR Besties podcast, said the case highlights the importance of employer responses during accommodation discussions.

"how you react matters so very much," Herd said.

Herd said employers should approach accommodation requests by focusing on possible solutions rather than treating them as obstacles.

"What do we have to do?" Herd said.

Herd also described a more collaborative approach for employers handling workplace accommodations.

"What could we do? How could this work?" Herd said.

Herd said SHRM’s handling of internal procedures could become a key issue because court filings indicated the organization did not follow the process outlined in its own policies. She also pointed to the wording used in SHRM’s written response to the applicant.

"preferred accommodation" Herd said was the wording used by SHRM in its written denial, as cited in court filings.