Discrimination
Employer Knowledge of an Undisclosed Disability Under FEHA
Updated
In Husband v. Target Corporation, the Second District Court of Appeal held that an employer is not charged with knowledge of an employee’s undisclosed mental disability unless the disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the facts the employer observed. Because the plaintiff’s two episodes of erratic conduct had other reasonable explanations, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all three of his claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The opinion was certified for publication.
Background
Target hired Daniel Husband as a fulfillment expert at its Burbank store in October 2020. He had been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder but did not tell any Target official about that diagnosis at orientation or afterward.
For his first 20 months there, he had no negative incidents. That changed in June and July of 2022, when he became visibly upset with a coworker, and later arrived at work highly emotional, making irrational comments about his work orders laughing at him and asking whether he had killed his stepmother and coworkers with his words.
A supervisor found the conduct disturbing, sent him home, and recommended he see a doctor or mental health professional, expressing concern for his mental state in emails to store leadership. On July 9, 2022, after further incidents, Target decided to terminate him for violating its workplace violence policy. At that point he had not disclosed his disability or requested any accommodation.
Husband sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA. The trial court granted Target summary judgment, and he appealed.
What the Court Held on the Employer’s Knowledge
An employer cannot be liable under any of these FEHA theories without knowledge of the employee’s disability. Where neither the employee nor a third party discloses it, knowledge is imputed only when the observed facts support disability as their only reasonable interpretation, and for accommodation claims only when the symptoms so obviously manifest a disability that one always follows.
Applying that standard, the court concluded the plaintiff’s erratic and irrational conduct did not meet it. While a mental disability was one reasonable reading of his behavior, it was not the only one—the conduct could also reflect substance use, medication effects, or sleep deprivation.
The court gave no controlling weight to a supervisor’s lay opinion that the plaintiff needed help, explaining that the test is an objective one and that untrained personal opinions cannot set the threshold for FEHA liability. Reviewing the grant of summary judgment and the construction of FEHA de novo, the court found no triable issue.
When an employee does not disclose a mental disability, an employer is charged with knowledge of it only if that disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the facts the employer observed. Two incidents of erratic and irrational conduct, without more, do not impute that knowledge as a matter of law.
Failure to Accommodate and the Interactive Process
The duties to reasonably accommodate and to engage in the interactive process also arise only when a disability is known to the employer. Because the plaintiff never disclosed his disability and its existence did not always follow from his observed symptoms, those claims failed for the same reason.
The court rejected the argument that awareness of conduct caused by a disability equals awareness of the disability itself, declining to require supervisors to diagnose mental illness from isolated symptoms. It also declined to relax the statutory knowledge requirement, noting that an employee may disclose a disability at hiring or any time afterward.
Having upheld summary judgment on all three FEHA claims, the court did not reach the plaintiff’s challenges to the dismissal of his punitive damages request or to the denial of a continuance. The judgment was affirmed.
What This Means for You
This decision clarifies that, absent disclosure, an employer is charged with knowledge of a mental disability under FEHA only when that disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the facts it observed. It confirms that isolated episodes of erratic or irrational conduct, and a coworker’s lay impression, do not by themselves impute such knowledge. The ruling touches FEHA disability discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and interactive-process claims.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.