A federal judge denied SHRM's summary judgment motion and sent the disability-bias case toward trial.
Why it matters: For HR and employment-law teams, the ruling centers on accommodation requests during hiring and the risk of refusing them after an offer is extended. It is a narrow reminder that ADA exposure can turn on how employers handle the interactive process, especially when a candidate's requested accommodation changes.
- U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles denied SHRM's summary judgment motion in Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management.
- The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The plaintiff says SHRM rescinded a June 3, 2024 job offer after she asked to bring a trained medical alert service dog to work for diabetes.
- The lawsuit cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act.
A federal judge has allowed a disability-discrimination lawsuit against the Society for Human Resource Management to proceed after the plaintiff said SHRM withdrew a job offer when she sought an accommodation for diabetes.
U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles denied SHRM's motion for summary judgment in Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, according to the court docket and case tracker at Clearinghouse. The complaint and docket materials say the dispute centers on whether SHRM unlawfully rejected the plaintiff's request to bring a trained medical alert service dog to work.
In the filed complaint, Torres says SHRM offered her a senior specialist role on June 3, 2024, then rescinded the offer on July 15, 2024 after she sought the accommodation for diabetes. The complaint also says SHRM discussed alternative accommodations before ending the interactive process, according to the filing summary at DocketNexus and the complaint in the case docket.
SHRM disputed that the service dog was necessary and said it offered alternatives including CGM use, breaks to check blood sugar, insulin-pump use and food or drink at or near the workstation. In a statement attributed to SHRM's media affairs director, Eddie Burke, the organization said it "continues to maintain that this claim has no merit."
The suit also invokes the Virginia Human Rights Act, which permits civil actions for disability discrimination under state law, according to Virginia law.
Yes, but: This ruling is case-specific and does not set a general rule for all hiring-stage accommodation disputes.
What's next: The case will continue toward trial absent further court action.