The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires California employers to engage in a timely interactive process upon first learning of an employee’s disability. The interactive process requires the employer and employee to engage in a timely and good-faith exchange of information regarding the employee’s limitations and potential accommodations, and to identify any reasonable accommodation that may enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, 11069(a); Cal. Gov. Code 12940 (n).)
Under California law, an employer can be deemed to have knowledge of an employee’s disability when: (1) an employee notifies the employer of a physical or mental disability, (2) if the employer learns of the disability through a third-party, or (3) if the employer becomes aware of the condition through observation. (Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc., (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1247.) The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Husband v. Target Corp. clarifies the limits of employer knowledge of a disability based solely on observation.
In Husband, an employee was hired by Target Corporation and did not disclose his bipolar disorder diagnosis at the time of hiring. (Husband v. Target Corp., (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 762.) During his first 20 months of employment, the employee had no documented behavioral issues in the workplace. Later, however, the employee on two documented occasions exhibited signs of erratic behavior including having emotional outbursts and making irrational statements that involved violence. Concerned about the employee’s well-being, his supervisor suggested that he seek professional help following these incidents. Target ultimately terminated the employee for violating its workplace violence policy. Only after his termination did the employee share with the employer that he had bipolar disorder.
Following his termination, the employee sued Target and argued that his behavior in the workplace was sufficient to place Target on notice of his disability and trigger the employer’s obligation under FEHA to engage in the interactive process.
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 the employee’s observed symptoms are so obviously manifestations of an underlying disability that the existence of a disability always follows from the observed symptoms.
In considering whether the employer should have been aware of the employee’s disability through observation, the court in Husband found that the employee’s erratic behavior, while potentially consistent with a mental disability, could also have reasonably been interpreted as resulting from other causes such as drug use or sleep deprivation. Further, the court found that the supervisor’s personal belief that the employee needed help or should see a mental health professional did not establish that the employer had knowledge of a disability, as FEHA applies an objective standard and not a supervisor’s subjective or non-expert opinion.
Lastly, the court found that California case law requires stronger evidence for notice, such as an employee’s disclosure, medical documentation, or symptoms that unmistakably indicate that there is a disability, and unusual or bizarre behavior is not sufficient to show that there was knowledge of a disability as an employer can reasonably assume other reasons for such behavior. The court concluded that the employee’s behavior was insufficient to provide Target with knowledge of a disability.
Husband clarifies that employers are not deemed to have knowledge of a disability solely from an employee exhibiting unusual or bizarre behavior. Employers who respond in good faith under such circumstances, such as suggesting that the employee end their workday early or seek medical care, are not automatically deemed to have had knowledge of a disability based on employee behaviors that could have been potentially caused by numerous other reasons.
Employers should ensure that supervisors and managers are trained to recognize when an employee discloses a disability, and that they understand that this may trigger FEHA obligations. Documenting any unusual incidents involving employee behavior assists employers in establishing an absence of actual knowledge of a disability, if such documentation shows behavior that, as in the Husband case, makes clear that a disability is not the sole reasonable explanation for the employee’s behavior.
