When the world’s largest Human Resources organization faces an $11.5 million verdict for racial discrimination and retaliation, it sends shockwaves through the entire profession. Beyond the headlines about the Society for Human Resource Management’s (SHRM) recent legal defeat lies a critical lesson that every organization must internalize: investigator training matters.

What Happened at SHRM?

In early December 2025, a Colorado jury delivered a significant verdict against SHRM in the case of Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management. The plaintiff, Rehab Mohamed, a former instructional designer who worked at SHRM from 2016 to 2020, alleged she was terminated weeks after complaining about racial discrimination and retaliation. The jury awarded her $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

The Investigation That Wasn’t

What made this case particularly damning was not just the allegations of discrimination, but how SHRM handled the internal investigation. Court documents revealed several troubling facts:

The timeline problem: HR allegedly drafted Mohamed’s termination documents either the same day or within two days of her filing a retaliation complaint—before completing any meaningful investigation into her claims.

The investigator’s qualifications: Perhaps most revealing was testimony from Mike Jackson, a former SHRM employee who conducted the investigation. Jackson testified that this was the only discrimination claim he had ever investigated. While he had undergone one training session on HR investigations a few months before the events in question, he could not recall any specifics from that training when questioned in court.

Why Proper Training Matters

The SHRM case illustrates what can go wrong when organizations treat workplace investigations as routine administrative tasks rather than specialized functions requiring proper expertise and training.

1. Objectivity and Impartiality

A properly trained investigator understands that their role is to gather facts objectively, not to reach predetermined conclusions. When termination documents are drafted before an investigation concludes, it raises serious questions about whether the investigation was genuine or merely performative—what the judge in this case suggested might be a “sham.”

2. Understanding Legal Frameworks

Workplace investigators must understand the legal standards that apply to retaliation claims. This includes knowing what constitutes protected activity, what evidence is relevant, and how timing of an adverse action can create inferences of retaliation. Without this foundation, investigators may miss critical red flags or fail to document essential information.

3. Proper Documentation

The SHRM case highlighted the importance of documentation at multiple levels. Mohamed’s recent performance reviews rated her as a “Solid Performer” or “Role Model” on all criteria and raised no concerns about deadlines—yet SHRM claimed she was fired for missing deadlines. A trained investigator would have recognized this inconsistency and explored it thoroughly.

What Constitutes Proper Investigation Training?

So, what should organizations look for when ensuring their investigators are properly trained?

Foundational legal knowledge: Understanding federal and state employment laws around harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

Investigation methodology: Learning the standard practices for the lifecycle of an investigation, including intake, planning, identifying witnesses, conducting interviews, gathering evidence, assessing the evidence using objective credibility factors and reaching reasoned conclusions.

Interview techniques: Developing skills in using the funnel method, including asking open-ended questions, clarifying questions, quantifying questions, closing questions, and otherwise handling difficult conversations and recognizing potential biases.

Documentation standards: Understanding what to document, how to document it, and how to maintain confidentiality while ensuring transparency.

Recognizing conflicts of interest: Knowing when to recuse oneself or bring in external investigators.

Moving Forward

For organizations serious about preventing harassment, discrimination and retaliation—and avoiding costly litigation—the path forward is clear:

1. Invest in training: Don’t assume that having an HR certification or years of experience automatically qualifies someone to conduct sensitive workplace investigations. Provide specialized training or hire qualified external investigators when needed.
2. Establish clear protocols: Create documented investigation procedures that include checkpoints for objectivity, requirements for thorough evidence gathering, and guidelines for when to involve legal counsel.
3. Maintain independence: Ensure investigators are sufficiently removed from the situation to remain objective. If there is any question about an investigator’s impartiality, bring in someone from outside the reporting chain or consider external counsel.
4. Document everything: From the moment a complaint is received through the conclusion of the investigation, maintain detailed records of every decision made, every step taken, every witness interviewed, and every piece of evidence considered.
5. Separate investigation from discipline: Do not draft termination documents before completing an investigation. The investigation should drive the outcome, not the other way around.
6. Regular refresher training: Employment law evolves, and best practices change. Ensure investigators receive ongoing training to stay current.

The Bottom Line

The SHRM case serves as a stark reminder that workplace investigations are high-stakes endeavors requiring specialized knowledge and skills. When an organization that is in the business of teaching others how to conduct HR functions falls short in this area, it underscores how easy it is to get investigations wrong—and how costly those mistakes can be.

Every organization that conducts internal investigations should ask itself: If our investigator had to testify in court about their qualifications and what they remember from their training, would we be comfortable with their answers? If the answer is anything less than an emphatic yes, it is time to invest in proper training.