California Court Clarifies When Employers Have Knowledge of an Employee’s Disability for Purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”) prohibits discrimination against an employee because of the employee’s physical or mental disability and requires employers to engage in the interactive process and make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s “known” disability.
In Husband v. Target Corp., Case No. B342334 (May 21, 2026), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District recently asked: “When an employee has not disclosed his disability to his employer, under what circumstances will the employer be charged with knowledge of that disability (and hence potentially liable under FEHA)?”
In answering that question, the court held that, for purposes of a FEHA claim for discrimination, an employer’s knowledge of a disability will be inferred only when the fact of disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts. For purposes of FEHA claims for failure to make a reasonable accommodation or failure to engage in the interactive process, an employer’s knowledge of a disability will be inferred only if the disability is obvious or its observed symptoms are so obviously manifestations of an underlying disability that the existence of a disability always follows from the observed symptoms.
Applying these standards to the case at issue before it, the court held that, as a matter of law, an employer is not charged with knowledge that an employee suffers from an undisclosed diagnosis of bipolar disorder where the evidence establishes that, on limited occasions, the employee was unusually aggressive and made irrational comments that caused his supervisor to be concerned for the employee’s health.
In that case, the employee worked as a fulfillment expert in Target’s Burbank store. Target’s new-hire orientation paperwork explained that Target would attempt to accommodate employees’ known physical and mental limitations; however, the plaintiff never informed Target that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
For nearly two years, the plaintiff had no incidents at Target. However, in the summer of 2022, that changed. The first incident occurred when the plaintiff was off-duty. He came into the store and became visibly upset with a coworker. There was a dispute between the plaintiff and the other employee about whether the plaintiff used profanity. A Target supervisor verbally counseled the plaintiff about the incident and issued a written counseling memo.
Before that written memo had been issued, there was a second incident in which the plaintiff acted “out of the ordinary.” He arrived for his scheduled shift looking “deflated” and “suddenly got angry.” Among other conduct, he became visibly upset, claimed the work orders were laughing at him, and pointed fingers and yelled at a coworker. When a supervisor offered assistance, the plaintiff said he wanted to go home and he was allowed to do so. The supervisor then reached out to human resources and management, detailed what occurred, and expressed concern for the plaintiff’s “mental state.”
The following day, the plaintiff arrived for his shift looking “shaky” and “distraught.” He was “breathing heavily” and told the same supervisor that he thought he “killed” his stepmother by speaking a word. The supervisor found the plaintiff’s statements to be “very disturbing” and his conduct to be “pretty erratic,” and believed the plaintiff “needed help” but did not know “what kind of help.” Because he thought “a hospital would be better than the police” for the plaintiff to seek help, the supervisor sent the plaintiff home with a recommendation to get examined by a medical or mental health provider. The supervisor again informed human resources and management about what occurred.
Later the same day, the plaintiff and his father returned to the store, spoke with a different supervisor, and demanded to know why the plaintiff had been sent home, asserting the plaintiff was “fine.” This supervisor encouraged them to return the next day and also notified human resources and management.
The plaintiff and his father returned the next day and spoke to human resources, who explained that the plaintiff’s conduct frightened coworkers. Later that day, Target made the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment for violating the company’s workplace violence policy but did not communicate the decision until several days later. At the time the termination decision was made, the plaintiff had not informed Target that he suffered from bipolar disorder and had not requested any accommodations for it.
The following day, the plaintiff returned to the store, entered an employee-only area, grabbed the store’s security keys and took them out of the store, claimed to be someone else, threw the keys at an employee, and shouted “I don’t want this shit!” before disrobing and marching away. The incident was captured on surveillance cameras.
Thereafter, after the termination decision had been made, the plaintiff submitted a note to Target from his medical or mental health provider, indicating the plaintiff had been “evaluated and deemed able to return to work,” without providing any additional information. This was submitted the same day Target informed the plaintiff of the termination decision.
Nearly two weeks later, the plaintiff called Target’s Integrity Hotline, asking to be reinstated. Although it did not respond to the plaintiff, Target reviewed his claims and upheld the termination decision.
Nearly two months later, the plaintiff wrote to Target through legal counsel and demanded reinstatement, claiming mental disability discrimination. Target acknowledged receipt of the correspondence but did not respond.
Thereafter, the plaintiff sued Target for discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a mental disability in violation of the FEHA. The trial court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed.
In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court found it was “undisputed that [the] plaintiff never informed Target that he has bipolar disorder” and cited case law affirming that a plaintiff does not establish knowledge on the part of an employer simply by telling coworkers of a disability. The court went on to find that the record likewise did not raise a triable issue of material fact imputing knowledge of the plaintiff’s bipolar disorder on Target for the statements and conduct that were witnessed by employees.
According to the court, “[w]hile emotional and irrational conduct is a symptom of bipolar disorder and while one reasonable interpretation of that behavior is that plaintiff suffered from a mental disability, that is not ‘the only reasonable interpretation’ of plaintiff’s behavior, nor does the existence of a mental disability ‘always follow’ from these behaviors.” Among other potential factors, the plaintiff’s conduct “could also be reasonably interpreted as the side effect of ingesting illegal substances or a combination of prescribed medications or a manifestation of sleep deprivation.”
Similarly, statements made by a supervisor indicating the supervisor believed the plaintiff “needed help” and that a hospital would be better for the plaintiff to seek help than calling the police, and the supervisor sending the plaintiff home to be evaluated by a medical or mental health provider, did not establish the requisite knowledge. The court noted that the supervisor’s subjective, non-expert opinion , while relevant, did not mean that was the only reasonable interpretation of the plaintiff’s actions.
Rather, the court held, “[t]he pertinent standard for imputing knowledge in this context turns on the ‘reasonable’—that is, an objective—interpretation of the observed facts, and that objective analysis demonstrates that there are multiple, potential reasons for [the] plaintiff’s behavior; as a result, a diagnosis of mental illness is not the only reasonable interpretation of that behavior.” Holding otherwise, the court explained, would result in inconsistent outcomes based on the “personal” and “non-expert” opinions of supervisors.
The circumstances of this case, while not necessarily a common occurrence, are also not unheard of in the workplace. Employers are often faced with challenging circumstances that trigger complicated—and sometimes inconsistent—obligations that can make it difficult to know which steps they can and should take. This case provides a good summary of the applicable standard under the FEHA for when an employer has knowledge of an employee’s disability in the context of disability discrimination, the interactive process, and reasonable accommodation.
This legal update and any use of its information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing contained on this website should be considered legal advice for any specific employer or employment situation. Consult legal counsel before taking any action as a result of information contained herein.
