The SHRM Paradox: When HR’s Largest Authority Faces Questions About Its Own Workplace Practices

The Society for Human Resource Management finds itself in an uncomfortable position. As the world’s largest professional association for HR practitioners, with over 329,000 members and nearly $200 million in annual revenue, SHRM has built its reputation on providing guidance for how organizations should manage their people. Now, serious questions are emerging about whether the organization follows its own advice.

The Core Issues

Recent reporting has brought three significant matters to public attention: a federal discrimination lawsuit with unusual judicial criticism, a controversial decision to remove “equity” from the organization’s diversity framework, and internal workplace culture concerns described by multiple former employees.

The Discrimination Case

The most substantial issue is Mohamed v. SHRM, a federal employment discrimination case filed in Colorado in June 2022. The plaintiff, Rehab Mohamed, a former employee who is an Egyptian national and woman of color, alleged racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

What makes this case particularly notable is not just its existence, but what happened when SHRM sought to have it dismissed. In October 2024, Federal Judge Gordon P. Gallagher denied the organization’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed to trial. His written order included criticism that is striking for any employer, but especially for an organization that teaches others how to handle workplace investigations.

According to the court record, Judge Gallagher found that SHRM “produced no facts showing it actually investigated” Mohamed’s discrimination complaint. The order also noted that the HR representative who supposedly investigated the complaint had also helped Mohamed’s manager draft performance-related emails about her, creating what the judge identified as a potential conflict that undermined the investigation’s neutrality.

The judge characterized this as a “messy employment discrimination case.” For context, federal judges typically use measured language. When a judge describes a case this way and points to specific deficiencies in an employer’s response to discrimination complaints, it signals serious concerns about the organization’s practices.

SHRM has denied the discrimination allegations, maintaining that Mohamed was terminated for legitimate performance issues. The case has not yet gone to trial, so no final determination of liability has been made. However, the denial of summary judgment means the court found sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that discrimination and retaliation occurred.

During discovery, SHRM also disclosed at least two other discrimination complaints: one that was settled with the EEOC and another pending with a California state regulator. While the existence of multiple complaints does not prove systemic problems, it does raise questions worth examining.

Sources:

CourtListener federal docket, Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management, Case No. 1:22-cv-01625 (D. Colo.)

New England Business Law Update, November 4, 2024

HR Dive, October 9, 2024

HRMorning, November 5, 2024

The Equity Decision

In July 2024, SHRM announced it would remove “equity” from its diversity, equity, and inclusion framework. The organization shifted from using “IE&D” (Inclusion, Equity & Diversity) to simply “I&D” (Inclusion & Diversity). Leadership explained that debates about the meaning of equity had become a “distraction” and that the term had become “polarizing.”

This decision came amid broader corporate and political pressure on DEI initiatives following the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision and increasing state-level legislation targeting diversity programs. Many organizations have softened or eliminated DEI language during this period, often citing legal risk concerns.

The substantive question is what removing “equity” signals. In DEI frameworks, the three terms have distinct meanings. Diversity refers to demographic representation. Inclusion addresses belonging and participation. Equity specifically focuses on fair treatment, access, and outcomes, with attention to removing structural barriers and addressing disparities.

When SHRM dropped equity from its framework, the organization stated it would subsume equity considerations under the inclusion umbrella.

Critics, including many HR practitioners, argued this represented a retreat from addressing systemic inequality. They contended that SHRM’s rationale suggesting the term was “polarizing” indicated a defensive political calculation rather than a strategic evolution based on effectiveness evidence.

The decision matters beyond SHRM itself because the organization’s positions influence thousands of member companies. When the leading HR authority steps back from equity language, it provides cover for member organizations to do the same.

Sources:

HR Dive, July 21, 2024

Forbes, July 28, 2024

HR Canada Magazine, July 14, 2024

American Society of Employers press release, July 15, 2024

SHRM reporting on broader DEI trends, October 29, 2024

Workplace Culture Allegations

Multiple former employees have described internal workplace practices that, if accurate, would contradict the guidance SHRM provides to its members.

These accounts include strict arrival-time rules, detailed dress code requirements, harsh language from leadership about employee performance, and concerning layoff procedures.

One particularly striking example reported involves a September event where a Marilyn Monroe impersonator performed at a SHRM gathering. According to former employees, the timing proved awkward given its proximity to September 11, and the entertainment choice raised questions about appropriateness and judgment, particularly for an organization that advises others on workplace culture and event planning.

The dress code policies reportedly extended to prohibiting specific items like sequins and included references to “enclothed cognition,” a psychological concept about how clothing affects mental processes.

Former employees described these detailed requirements as micromanagement inconsistent with modern workplace flexibility that SHRM advocates for in its member guidance.

CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. reportedly used the terms “entitled,” “complacent,” and “sloppy” to describe staff during an all-hands meeting. This language has been confirmed in multiple news sources.

Former employees also described a “red carpet in, red carpet out” approach to layoffs, with limited advance notice for terminated employees, which they viewed as contradicting standard HR practices around dignified separations and adequate transition periods.

These accounts come primarily from departed employees who were dissatisfied enough to speak with reporters. Current employees typically do not speak on the record about their employers, particularly regarding sensitive matters. This creates an inherent limitation: the public record reflects the perspectives of those unhappy enough to leave and talk, not a representative sample of all employees.

Without quantitative data on employee engagement, turnover rates, internal complaint statistics, or comparative benchmarks against similar organizations, it is impossible to determine whether the described incidents represent isolated problems or systemic cultural issues. Anecdotes, even from multiple sources, do not establish patterns without supporting metrics.

Sources:

Business Insider investigative report, November 23, 2025

Various news coverage citing Taylor’s language

Former employee social media posts

The Credibility Question

The central issue transcends any specific allegation. SHRM derives its authority from perceived expertise in workplace management. The organization provides certification programs, publishes best-practice guidance, influences policy debates, and serves as a resource that employers, courts, and regulators reference.

This authority depends on trust that SHRM knows what good workplace practices look like. When a federal judge criticizes the organization’s handling of a discrimination investigation, when it steps back from equity commitments amid political pressure, and when multiple former employees describe workplace practices that conflict with standard HR guidance, that trust becomes vulnerable.

Research on organizational legitimacy shows that perceived hypocrisy, saying one thing while doing another, is particularly damaging to institutional credibility. For professional associations specifically, members evaluate whether the organization practices what it preaches.

If members believe SHRM does not follow its own HR advice, the value of its certifications and the reliability of its published guidance come into question.

Sources:

Oxford organizational culture research

Wharton people analytics framework

ASU Lodestar Center on nonprofit workplace culture

Nonprofit Quarterly on corporate influence in nonprofits

What Can Be Verified

The strongest evidence relates to matters of public record. The federal lawsuit exists, the judicial criticism is documented in court orders available to the public, and the case is proceeding to trial.

The removal of equity from the DEI framework is confirmed by SHRM’s own statements. Financial data from IRS Form 990 filings shows the organization’s revenue and that CEO compensation totaled approximately $3.64 million in 2023.

The workplace culture allegations are more difficult to assess. They rest on investigative reporting with access to internal documents and multiple employee sources. These accounts are consistent across different individuals, which strengthens credibility.

However, they cannot be independently verified through public records. They should be understood as allegations supported by multiple witnesses, not established facts.

The reporting also lacks quantitative data that would allow assessment of scale and systematicity. We do not know turnover rates, employee satisfaction scores, the number of internal complaints, or how SHRM compares to peer organizations on these metrics. This absence makes it impossible to distinguish between isolated incidents and cultural patterns.

Sources:

SHRM 2023 Annual Report

SHRM Form 990 for fiscal year 2023

ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer

Federal court public records

The Broader Context

SHRM’s situation reflects tensions many organizations face. The period from 2023 through 2025 has seen significant pressure on DEI programs, with legal challenges, political opposition, and corporate pullbacks.

Trade associations and nonprofits increasingly operate with corporate-style executive compensation and governance structures, which can create perceived disconnects between mission and practice. High-profile discrimination cases, even when employers ultimately prevail, carry reputational costs and raise questions about internal processes.

None of this excuses problematic behavior if it exists. But it provides context for understanding the pressures SHRM faces and the difficult decisions any large organization must navigate.

Sources:

KFF analysis of DEI elimination implications

Civil Rights Leadership Conference on federal DEI policy changes

Harvard Business Review commentary on dropping equity from DEI

National Institute for Workers’ Rights policy brief on equity

What Remains Unknown

Several critical questions cannot be answered with currently available information. Has SHRM’s workplace culture actually deteriorated, or have a few dissatisfied employees left and spoken out while the majority remain satisfied? How do the organization’s actual turnover rates, complaint statistics, and employee engagement scores compare to similar organizations?

What changes, if any, has leadership implemented in response to the lawsuit or internal concerns? How do current employees, not just former ones, view the workplace?

The discrimination lawsuit will eventually reach a jury, which will make factual findings. That process will produce evidence and testimony that will either validate or challenge the plaintiff’s claims.

Until then, the case represents serious allegations with sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment, but not proven facts.

The Stakes

For SHRM’s members and for the broader HR profession, these issues matter significantly. HR practitioners rely on SHRM for guidance, certification, and professional development. Many cite SHRM resources when making recommendations to their own organizations.

If questions about SHRM’s credibility persist or intensify, it affects the standing of the profession itself.

The organization faces a choice about how to respond. Transparent engagement with these concerns, willingness to examine internal practices, and openness to external assessment would demonstrate commitment to the principles it teaches.

Defensive posturing or dismissal of criticism would reinforce concerns about disconnection between stated values and actual behavior.

Moving Forward

Several developments will clarify the current picture. The Mohamed lawsuit will proceed to trial, potentially in 2025 or 2026, which will establish facts through testimony and evidence.

SHRM’s next annual report and Form 990 filing will show whether membership trends, financial health, or organizational structure have changed. Independent workplace culture assessments, if conducted, could provide objective data on employee sentiment and organizational practices.

For now, the record shows an organization facing legitimate scrutiny. A federal judge has questioned its discrimination investigation practices. It has stepped back from equity language under political pressure. Multiple former employees have described workplace culture concerns. These facts are not in dispute.

What they mean for SHRM’s future credibility, for its ability to fulfill its mission, and for the confidence its members can place in its guidance remains to be determined. The organization that teaches others how to manage people must now demonstrate it can effectively manage the challenges to its own reputation and practices.

The HR profession watches closely, because this is not just about one organization. It is about whether the institutions that set standards for workplace practices can hold themselves to those same standards.

That question matters for everyone who relies on professional guidance to make their own workplaces better.