不到一年第二次站上联邦陪审团法庭：SHRM这次因“服务犬+撤回Offer”被告NACSHR核心摘要：美国最大HR专业组织之一 SHRM，正在因为自己的“合理便利流程”走上陪审团法庭。原告 Fiona Torres 患有 Type 1 diabetes，她称自己在获得 SHRM Senior Specialist Offer 后，请求携带能够预警危险血糖变化的服务犬上班，之后服务犬请求被拒，Offer最终被撤回。SHRM则表示，公司进行了善意interactive process，并提出CGM、insulin pump、breaks、饮食及leave等替代措施。真正的法律焦点并不是“员工想要什么公司就必须给什么”，而是：企业提出的替代方案是否真正有效解决员工的残障相关需求。 对HR来说，这个案件再次提醒我们——合理便利最重要的不只是结果，更是individualized assessment、流程、证据、政策一致性和沟通方式。目前案件仍在审理，尚无最终判决。
不到一年，美国最具影响力的人力资源专业组织之一 SHRM（Society for Human Resource Management）第二次站上联邦陪审团法庭。这一次，争议来自一份已经发出、后来又被撤回的工作Offer。
原告 Fiona Torres 患有 Type 1 diabetes。她在获得SHRM Senior Specialist职位Offer后，提出希望携带一只能够预警危险血糖变化的医疗服务犬进入办公室。SHRM没有接受这一方案，而是讨论了continuous glucose monitor、insulin pump、进食饮水、休息和leave等替代措施。2024年7月15日，SHRM最终撤回Offer。Torres随后依据Americans with Disabilities Act（ADA）和Virginia Human Rights Act（VHRA）提起诉讼。2026年10月6日，案件在Virginia Alexandria正式进入陪审团审判。
争议不是“公司必须允许服务犬吗”
根据Torres提交给U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia的Complaint，她认为服务犬能够比单纯依赖设备更早发现危险的血糖变化，因此是保障其工作期间安全所必需的reasonable accommodation。SHRM则否认歧视，并公开表示，公司并没有简单拒绝她的需求，而是进行了good-faith interactive process，并要求Torres与医生讨论其他可能的便利方案。SHRM的核心观点是，ADA并不保证候选人一定获得自己“preferred accommodation”。
因此，这场官司真正要解决的并不是“服务犬能不能进入办公室”这样一个简单的是非题，而是更具体的事实问题：SHRM提出的其他措施，对于Torres的实际医疗需求而言，是否构成有效的替代方案？双方的interactive process是否充分？
SHRM此前曾申请summary judgment，希望在正式庭审前结束案件。但联邦法官Patricia Tolliver Giles在2026年9月拒绝了这一请求，认为关于disability discrimination和failure to accommodate仍存在“genuine dispute of material fact”，因此需要进入审判。需要注意，这一裁定并不意味着SHRM已经违法，而是意味着现有证据不足以在审前直接结束案件。
这已经不是SHRM第一次站上陪审团法庭
这也是此次案件格外受到美国HR行业关注的原因。就在十个月前，SHRM刚刚经历过另一场就业歧视陪审团审判。
2025年12月5日，在 Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management 一案中，Colorado联邦陪审团认定SHRM在前员工Rehab Mohamed提出的种族歧视及报复案件中承担责任，并裁定 $1.5 million compensatory damages加$10 million punitive damages，总额$11.5 million。该案源于Mohamed关于工作场所种族差别待遇的投诉以及其后被解雇的争议。SHRM强烈反对该裁决，并已进入上诉程序。
两起案件的事实和法律问题并不相同：Mohamed案涉及race discrimination和retaliation，而Torres案聚焦disability discrimination和reasonable accommodation，不能简单相互类推。但对于一家长期向雇主和HR专业人士提供劳动合规、员工关系和管理实践指导的专业组织而言，不到一年连续两次让就业争议走到联邦陪审团面前，本身已经成为值得关注的行业事件。
真正值得继续看的，是陪审团如何理解“合理便利”
Torres案目前仍在审理，陪审团尚未作出最终裁决。最终结果不仅将决定SHRM是否需要承担法律责任，也可能让外界进一步看到，当“员工首选的便利方案”与“雇主认为可以替代的方案”发生冲突时，美国法院和陪审团究竟如何判断什么才是真正有效的reasonable accommodation。
NACSHR将继续关注该案最终裁决及后续进展。
资料来源：U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia，Torres v. Society for Human Resource Management, No. 1:25-cv-02360；U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado，Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management, No. 1:22-cv-01625；SHRM官方声明；HR Dive。
undue hardship
2026年10月07日
undue hardship
EEOC Issues Final Regulation on Pregnant Workers Fairness Act美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）发布了《怀孕工作者公平法案》（PWFA）的最终规则，该规则自2023年6月27日生效，要求15名以上员工的雇主为怀孕、分娩或相关医疗条件的员工提供合理的工作调整，除非这种调整给雇主带来过大困难。此规则进一步加强了1964年民权法案和美国残疾人法案下的保护措施，提供了关于合理调整、雇主责任及孕期工作者权利的更清晰指导。
Aids Implementation of Civil Rights Law Expanding Protections and Accommodations for Pregnant Workers
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), providing important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law. The PWFA requires most employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations,” or changes at work, for a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship.
The PWFA builds upon existing protections against pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC began accepting charges of discrimination on June 27, 2023, the day on which the PWFA became effective.
The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on Apr. 19. The final rule was approved by majority vote of the Commission on Apr. 3, 2024, and becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The final rule and its accompanying interpretative guidance reflect the EEOC’s deliberation and response to the approximately 100,000 public comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It provides clarity to employers and workers about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, how individuals can request reasonable accommodations, and numerous concrete examples.
“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a win for workers, families, and our economy. It gives pregnant workers clear access to reasonable accommodations that will allow them to keep doing their jobs safely and effectively, free from discrimination and retaliation,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “At the EEOC, we have assisted women who have experienced serious health risks and unimaginable loss simply because they could not access a reasonable accommodation on the job. This final rule provides important information and guidance to help employers meet their responsibilities, and to jobseekers and employees about their rights. It encourages employers and employees to communicate early and often, allowing them to identify and resolve issues in a timely manner.”
Highlights from the final regulation include:
· Numerous examples of reasonable accommodations such as additional breaks to drink water, eat, or use the restroom; a stool to sit on while working; time off for health care appointments; temporary reassignment; temporary suspension of certain job duties; telework; or time off to recover from childbirth or a miscarriage, among others.
· Guidance regarding limitations and medical conditions for which employees or applicants may seek reasonable accommodation, including miscarriage or still birth; migraines; lactation; and pregnancy-related conditions that are episodic, such as morning sickness. This guidance is based on Congress’s PWFA statutory language, the EEOC’s longstanding definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court decisions interpreting the term “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions from Title VII.
· Guidance encouraging early and frequent communication between employers and workers to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.
· Clarification that an employer is not required to seek supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation and should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.
· Explanation of when an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer and its business.
· Information on how employers may assert defenses or exemptions, including those based on religion, as early as possible in charge processing.
More information about the PWFA and the EEOC’s final rule, including resources for employers and workers, is available on the EEOC’s “What You Should Know about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” webpage.
For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.
The EEOC prevents and remedies unlawful employment discrimination and advances equal opportunity for all. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
扫一扫
添加客服
