Every so often a litigation strategy comes along that just makes you stare at the screen, shake your head, and think, “Did a lawyer really decide this was the best idea, and how much did they bill for it?”
Yes, you read that right. SHRM didn’t want a jury to hear that … SHRM is an expert in human resources.
So, what was the theory behind this motion? SHRM argued that acknowledging its own expertise would “confuse the issues,” “mislead the jury,” and — my personal favorite — “improperly hold SHRM to a higher standard than any other employer.”
To the surprise of no one who has ever tried a case in federal court, the judge rejected that motion outright. He called SHRM’s asserted expertise “integral” to the case and said it “cannot reasonably be excluded.”
Which raises this obvious question: If SHRM isn’t an expert in HR, what exactly does it do and why does it exist?
A trade association that sells expertise in HR best practices is being sued for the very conduct it tells employers to avoid — in this case, terminating an employee after she complains that her supervisor treated her differently because of her race.
Every employer can make mistakes. Even one that markets itself as the guardian of HR wisdom. But trying to shield yourself from your own claimed expertise in front of a jury? That’s a strategic choice that’s going to raise eyebrows in any courtroom. And, apparently, in the court of public opinion, too — starting right here.
