On May 21, 2026, the California Court of Appeal sided with an employer in a Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) disability case, a genuine win for employers, but one with real limits worth understanding.
As a brief background, FEHA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s physical or mental disability and to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process with the employee to determine what accommodations are reasonable. California law has long held that an employer cannot be liable for violating FEHA’s disability provisions unless it knows of that disability, including: (1) when 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 employee becomes aware of the condition through observation. In Husband v. Target Corp., the Court of Appeal answered a question that is consistently brought up in workplaces: when does an employee’s odd or troubling behavior legally put the employer “on notice” that they are dealing with a disability?
The Facts:
Daniel Husband (“Husband”) worked as a fulfillment expert at a Target store in Burbank for about 20 months without incident. Then things changed fast. First, Husband allegedly swore at a coworker when he entered the store as a customer. A few weeks later he showed up to a shift agitated and yelling, and his supervisor sent him home, describing the behavior as “out of the ordinary” and “somewhat disturbing.” The next day, Husband arrived shaky and distraught and told his supervisor he’d “killed” his stepmother by speaking a word, then asked whether he’d killed anyone at the store. Supervisors were alarmed enough to loop in Human Resources and privately suggest Husband might need to see a doctor or even be hospitalized. That same day Target terminated Husband for violating its workplace violence policy after he made threats against coworkers. In turn, Husband sued Target under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process built on the theory that Target should have recognized he had bipolar disorder and accommodated him. Here, Husband never told Target about his diagnosis, and never requested an accommodation.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that Target had no knowledge of the employee’s alleged disability when it decided to terminate him and that no accommodation was necessary since the employee never disclosed he suffered from a mental disability.
Holding:
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court ruled that an employer is not liable for disability discrimination under FEHA unless it had actual knowledge of the disability (from the employee or someone else) or imputed knowledge. It should be noted that imputed knowledge only exists when a disability is the “only reasonable interpretation” of the facts the employer had in front of it. Erratic, alarming, even disturbing behavior isn’t enough on its own.
The Court reasoned that while one interpretation of the employee’s actions was a mental disability, another reasonable interpretation was that the employee suffered a “side effect of ingesting illegal substances or a combination of prescribed medications or a manifestation of sleep deprivation.” The Court rejected the notion that the manager’s subjective opinion regarding employee treatment from a hospital altered the analysis. Rather, the standard is an objective one based on the facts, not a subjective opinion from an untrained co-worker.
Why This Matters:
This is useful precedent for employers. However, it is not a blank check to ignore warning signs. There are three practical takeaways employers should consider:
1. Document what you observe, not what you assume. Here, Target’s contemporaneous notes describing the behavior as “out of the ordinary” rather than speculating about the employee’s diagnosis helped its case.
2. Keep the disclosure channels open. The court noted Target employees said they would have accommodated Husband’s condition had they known. That’s a favorable fact. Employers still need clear, well-publicized ways for employees to disclose a disability and request accommodation, because once an employer has actual knowledge, the interactive process obligation immediately kicks in.
3. Don’t be tempted into willful blindness. The “only reasonable interpretation” standard is narrow. If an employee or a family member explicitly tells you about a condition, or the facts are genuinely unambiguous, courts will still find imputed knowledge. This case protects employers who acted on legitimate policy violations without a disability disclosure. It does not protect employers who had clear signals and looked away.
Bottom Line:
Employers still need to be mindful before disciplining or terminating an employee for concerning conduct. Employers should train supervisors to escalate concerning behavior to HR immediately, document behavior factually, and make sure your accommodation request is easy to find and easy to use. Provided the complexities of the law, employers should consult with an experienced employment attorney in uncertain cases.
