SHRM's $400,000 Service Dog Verdict: ADA Accommodation Lessons for HR (and Everyone Else)

"I may not bring my service dog on the first day."

If you were a juror at the Torres v. SHRM trial last week in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, you would have heard some version of that line over and over - in SHRM’s opening statement, from SHRM’s Chief Human Resources Officer on the stand and even from Ms. Torres herself.

The point was always the same: She says she needs her service dog at all times, but she might not even bring him on day one. Isn't that inconsistent?

Except there was more context - and that context matters.

In the video and blog below, I break down what happened in the lawsuit, what stood out to me (including both what SHRM got right and what they could have done differently) and practical lessons for managers and HR leaders.

What happened

In April 2024, Fiona Torres applied for a senior specialist role on the product management team at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the largest HR organization in the world that describes itself as "the trusted authority on all things work."

She's lived with Type 1 diabetes for 30+ years - and said so right on her resume (in the section where she discussed mentoring recently diagnosed individuals with the same condition). Since 2017, she’s had Meechum, a trained diabetic alert dog who paws her when her blood sugar is heading too high or too low. In June 2024, SHRM’s recruiter called with a verbal offer of $90,000 a year. Torres accepted on the call and asked if she could bring Meechum to work as an accommodation. According to SHRM’s CHRO, it was the first time in his tenure an applicant had asked for an accommodation, and the first service dog request SHRM had seen.

What followed was a nearly six-week back-and-forth. Torres sent a 2019 doctor’s note and Meechum’s training records. Two weeks later, SHRM told her "it does not appear that your service dog is necessary." Torres answered in detail: before Meechum, she had "ample" history of losing consciousness at work due to hypoglycemic incidents and requiring paramedic assistance - and since getting him, she’d needed paramedics only once.

SHRM then asked when she goes without the dog and for a current doctor’s note. She wrote that she relies on him "at all times (24/7)" - and in the same email explained exactly when he isn’t with her: grooming appointments, environments too loud or crowded for him, a work event full of loud evening parties and possibly her first day, so she could “better evaluate the seating layout” for his setup. Her endocrinologist sent a new letter saying it was “imperative out of medical necessity she has her service dog at all times for her safety.”

On July 3, SHRM informed Torres via email that it was denying her request (specifically, that they were declining her "preferred accommodation request to have [her] service dog on site") and offered alternatives instead: facilitating use of her glucose monitor, breaks to check her blood sugar, food and drinks at her desk and flexible leave.

Torres wrote back outlining five recurring situations where her glucose monitor leaves her without readings (including her insurance not filling the prescription, a warm-up period for the CGM and if the adhesives fall off), and let them know she had submitted details to the EEOC. SHRM's talent director's response: "Thank you, Fiona. I will be out of the office this week. I will be checking my email periodically." On July 15, SHRM emailed Torres again to rescind the offer. Two days later, the job was reposted.

What SHRM could have learned 

SHRM knew some of the context behind the reasons Torres was sometimes not with Meechum. Torres had explained to SHRM by email that she might not bring Meechum on the first day of work because she wanted to "evaluate the seating layout." She had never been inside the office; she’d interviewed only by video, so she wanted to get a sense of the layout before bringing Meechum.

And if SHRM had asked a few more questions, here’s what it would have learned - much of it came out in trial testimony. Her decision to travel internationally without Meechum came down to quarantine rules, long flights and hotels or transit that might turn him away - and her mom, trained to manage her diabetes since she was diagnosed as a child, filled in. (Her mom testified that when they travel, "I become the Meechum.") The exercise classes she leaves him home for are so loud she wears earplugs. A Las Vegas work trip with him had been “very hard on him.” At her prior job, a co-worker took him out for “maybe about 15 minutes” two or three times over several years, because she was in meetings and he needed to relieve himself. At her next job, he came to the office with her except on day one, so she could “evaluate the space,” and one cramped all-day staff meeting.

She gave this context to explain that these situations - which she called "extremely rare" - were about Meechum's safety. She also explained that her backup wouldn't be possible at the office. As Torres put it: “My mom can’t work with me.”

Ultimately, the denied accommodation and rescinded job offer didn't just end in a disappointed candidate - or even a negative Glassdoor review or viral social media video. Torres filed a claim with the EEOC and eventually sued in court for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The case is Torres v. SHRM, No. 1:25-cv-02360 (E.D. Va.).

What the jury decided

On October 9, 2026, a federal jury unanimously found SHRM liable for failure to accommodate and disability discrimination under both federal and Virginia law. It awarded Torres $400,000 in compensatory damages.

But the verdict is more nuanced than “SHRM lost”:

- No punitive damages. The jury awarded damages to make Torres whole, not to send a message.

- It wasn’t the diabetes - it was the accommodation. On the ADA claim, the jury did NOT find SHRM rescinded the offer because of her disability. It found SHRM rescinded it because of its need to accommodate her disability. Under the ADA, that’s still disability discrimination.

- The process wasn’t the problem - the answer was. The jury did NOT find that SHRM failed to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process. But it did find SHRM failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

And SHRM never got to argue that the dog would have been an undue hardship. Before the case went to the jury, the judge granted Torres’ motion to take that defense off the table, because the judge held that SHRM hadn't provided testimony to show that they ever analyzed whether the dog would be a hardship. 

What SHRM did right

Legal cases are complex, and even when an employer loses, there can be things that they did right. As I went through the (many!) legal filings and transcripts in this case, a few things stood out. For each, I'll include what SHRM did right, but also what others can do to take it even further.

1) They hired on the resume, not the diagnosis. The CHRO noticed that Torres had stated on her resume that she had 30 years living with Type 1 diabetes. He said he found it brave of her to put that, because other employers might have made a poor decision based on that information. The verdict lines up: on the ADA claim, the jury did not find SHRM pulled the offer because of her disability.

Even better: Bring that same open mind into the accommodation conversation. The jury found the offer was pulled over the accommodation, not the diagnosis.

2) The recruiter knew her lane and escalated fast. When Torres asked about the dog, the recruiter told her she wasn’t the one who handled accommodations and would get back to her. She called her supervisor, who, in turn, called SHRM's CHRO. SHRM stood by this decision, with their CHRO calling it the right thing to do.

Even better: Route it to the person who actually handles accommodations (who can then escalate it if needed). SHRM’s normal accommodations lead was never involved - the request went straight to the CHRO, who involved SHRM's CEO and legal counsel.

3) HR called the same day and kept one point of contact. The talent director called Torres that afternoon to acknowledge her request and understand it more. Then she made herself the single point of contact, to avoid passing her along to another person. Nobody wants to retell their medical history to five different people.

Even better: Ensure that point of contact is one that has the context to ask follow-up questions and understand decisions, not just relay messages. Asked at trial whether she knew why the dog was denied, the talent director said she didn't.

4) They put alternatives in writing and kept the door open. More than one of SHRM's emails invited more information or mentioned the interactive process. Even the email denying her accommodation asked Torres to consult her doctor and suggest other options. The jury didn’t find SHRM failed to engage in good faith - and that’s important.

Even better: When Torres gave five detailed examples of when the alternative accommodations wouldn’t work, they could have answered with a conversation, not a conclusion. Documentation matters, but pairing it with a real conversation can make the process feel a lot more human.

What SHRM could have done differently

1) They skipped their own process. SHRM had a written accommodation procedure, a standard request form and a staff member whose job included managing accommodations. But they weren't exactly followed. The CHRO didn't think it was necessary to have a form completed since Torres had already provided information by email. And the accommodations lead was on vacation for a couple days during this, and only handled easy accommodations, not complex ones like this (which the CHRO considered complex because it was from an applicant and requested a service dog). But the accommodations lead had some involvement, because three days in, she had already pulled together service animal guidance - including pointing to the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) - from SHRM’s leave vendor. But the talent director she sent it to couldn’t recall whether it ever reached the CHRO.

The do-over: Use the form and bring in the accommodations lead. A form isn’t paperwork for paperwork’s sake - it carries the steps you’d otherwise forget, like who reviews, whether a doctor is contacted and how a release gets signed. And if a form would literally duplicate information by email, make that clear in the policy - so it doesn't look like you're not following it. 

2) They focused on only half the sentence. In legal filings and at trial, SHRM repeated Torres' statement that she may not bring her dog the first day. But in the second half of that sentence in her email, Torres had explained why: to get a sense of the layout for Meechum.

The do-over: “Would it be helpful to come see the space briefly so you can assess it before a full workday, and let us know if there's anything we could consider to assist?”

3) They treated exceptions as contradictions. SHRM did ask about the exceptions once - credit for that. But it read her answer as a competing set of facts, instead of asking the follow-up. As Torres' counsel raised at trial, Torres brought these exceptions up herself. Asked whether he would have known about them otherwise, the CHRO agreed he wouldn’t have.

The do-over: “You mentioned a few times he stays home. Can you walk me through those, when those could occur in your work here, and anything we might need to plan for that?”

4) They treated “no prescription” as “no support.” No doctor had initially prescribed Meechum - Torres testified that she'd learned about service dogs being beneficial for Type 1 diabetes from a co-worker whose friend had one for the same condition, and had researched them and texted numerous questions to the friend. Meechum had been trained by an organization specifically for Torres. But also, there’s no "initial prescription" requirement for a service dog under the ADA. Where a disability and need for an accommodation aren't obvious, JAN explains that an employer can ask for reasonable documentation of the disability and the need, and Torres had plenty: including sending the training records and her current endocrinologist’s letter (and at trial, that same doctor confirmed her support for Torres' use of Meechum as a diabetic alert dog).

The do-over: Ask the trainer for documentation if the doctor wasn’t involved in getting the dog - that’s exactly what JAN suggests. And consider a trial period. JAN says “one to six weeks might be enough time to assess the situation.” SHRM never offered one.

5) They talked to lawyers, but not doctors. The CHRO met with counsel three times and briefed the CEO. Nobody talked to a doctor, even though her endocrinologist’s letter said, “Please contact me if you have further questions.” The CHRO said calling her doctor would be a HIPAA violation - but agreed he never asked Torres for permission (which is a step her prior employer had taken).

The do-over: “Would you be comfortable signing a release so we can ask your health care provider a few questions?” When that's permitted, ask the question: would the alternatives we’re offering work instead? If not, why not?

6) They let a blanket policy end the conversation. Several other people on Torres' would-be team, including her manager, worked remotely. So why did Torres have to be in the office? SHRM's witnesses cited their policy about being local and in the office - and that those employees had been grandfathered in from a prior acquisition. But it wasn't even discussed with Torres. And nobody asked the hiring manager whether the role could be done remotely. To be fair, Torres said she was excited to be in the office - but a policy is where an accommodation conversation starts, not where it ends.

The do-over: Ask the hiring manager, "Could this role work remotely, even temporarily, while we figure this out?"

7) They were concerned, but never checked. The CHRO testified that he was absolutely concerned the dog would disrupt operations - but also, that they never got to that point (such as asking employees about allergies or even asking the hiring manager whether Meechum would affect their team) because they determined that her service dog was not a reasonable accommodation. That’s why the judge took the undue hardship defense away: she held that there was nothing to back it up.

The do-over: Use the JAN playbook: be mindful not to disclose medical conditions, but let staff know a service animal is coming, invite concerns like allergies and move seats if needed. If you're worried about the team, ask the team.

8) They engaged, but didn’t always respond. When Torres explained exactly why the glucose monitor alternative wouldn’t work for her, the response was an out-of-office note - then the rescission. Torres didn’t propose other alternatives. But when someone tells you specifically why your alternative won't work, that’s not the end of the conversation. It’s information you need to do something with - and that something just might involve continuing the conversation.

The do-over: “Thank you for this detail. Can we talk through these more specifically?"

The lesson for everyone else: Be curious, not just suspicious

Accommodations don't come up every day - even as the world's largest HR association, this situation was new for SHRM. And when you’ve never dealt with something before, there are very human reactions that can happen. Concern isn’t the problem. Concern without sufficient curiosity is.

I talk about the Pause-Consider-Act framework, and how it can be used in any situation at work. Here's how it could have been used here, when SHRM received a request from their candidate who said she needed her service dog 24/7, but then gave examples of when he wasn't with her:

- Pause: Before you react to the "exception," go back to what the person actually said. Consider what you know, including the "why" behind it.

- Consider: Ask yourself how this could make sense from the other person's perspective. If you have lingering questions, ask them - out loud, not in your head.

- Act: Use your process - the form, a signed release if you need the doctor’s input, a trial period if you’re unsure. And at every step, make sure you're asking and responding in a way that would feel fair - to the person on the other side, and to people who are hearing about this for the first time (which in this case ended up being a jury).

How it could have gone

An alternative situation isn't a hypothetical. Torres' prior employer asked her questions, and HR had her sign a release and asked her doctor to confirm the accommodation was "both necessary and appropriate." The doctor’s office confirmed it. They approved the request in about two and a half weeks - and asked for a certificate, a label identifying the dog as a service dog and for her to "notify HR ahead of your service dog’s first day in the office." The same employee, and the same type of request. But different questions, and a very different outcome.

What this actually costs

$400,000 is the headline - but it isn’t the full bill.

The verdict is $400,000 in compensatory damages, and that number could still change with post-trial motions. Then there are SHRM’s own lawyers: more than two years of an EEOC claim process and then litigation, with lots of motions back-and-forth long before the four-day jury trial. And under the ADA, as the prevailing party, Torres can ask the judge to order SHRM to pay her attorneys’ fees, too. That request hasn’t been filed yet, but for perspective, in SHRM’s last trial loss (the Mohamed trial in federal court that ended in an $11.5 million verdict), the plaintiff’s attorneys have requested more than $536,000 in fees.

Add it up and it’s not hard to see this case costing SHRM more than $1 million.

Insurance can soften that. But employment practices liability policies come with deductibles, and claims can mean that premiums increase (and SHRM's insurer is already suing them over last year's verdict). And then there’s the reputational cost: when the world’s largest HR association loses an accommodation case, HR professionals hear about it. Your organization might not be SHRM. But you don't have to be SHRM for that to matter - employees, candidates and customers read headlines, too.

What to take away

The jury didn’t seem to fault SHRM's good faith in the process - but instead, their eventual decision.

I often tell managers that you hear "document" - but it's important to explain what that means. Documentation shouldn't be written for court - it's to make things clear to an employee. Most organizations won't end up in court for an accommodation lawsuit. But when juries do read things, they read them like regular people, with real feelings.

Being curious takes five minutes. Being suspicious may have cost more than a million dollars. 

I've worked as both an employment lawyer and in HR, so I've seen these situations from multiple sides. This isn't legal advice. I take what I've learned from those experiences and turn it into practical training that teaches managers what to do and say in real situations.

Want to help your managers handle moments like these with more confidence? That's what we teach at Manager Method. Learn more at managermethod.com.