Background
Daniel Husband worked as a fulfillment expert at a Target store in Burbank. Although diagnosed with bipolar I disorder, he never disclosed his condition to Target. After 20 months of uneventful employment, Husband had two disturbing incidents in July 2022: he became highly emotional and reported that his work orders were “laughing at him,” then the next night asked his supervisor whether he had killed his stepmother or anyone at the store.
His supervisor, Daniel Abts, found the behavior “very disturbing” and sent Husband home with a recommendation to see a doctor or mental health professional. Abts emailed colleagues expressing concern for Husband’s “mental state.” Target terminated Husband days later for violating its workplace violence policy. Husband sued under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. The trial court granted Target summary judgment, and Husband appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. The court held that Target was not charged with knowledge of Husband’s bipolar disorder because, under FEHA’s knowledge-imputation standard, disability was not “the only reasonable interpretation” of the facts known to Target. While erratic and irrational behavior is a symptom of bipolar disorder, it could also reasonably be interpreted as a side effect of illegal substances, medication interactions, or sleep deprivation — a point Husband himself conceded at deposition.
The court rejected arguments that a supervisor’s subjective belief that Husband “needed help” and might need a hospital was sufficient. The pertinent standard is objective: it turns on whether reasonable interpretations other than mental disability exist for the observed behavior. One untrained co-worker’s speculation cannot make an employer liable. The court also declined to equate observation of any single symptom of a mental disability with knowledge of the disability itself, noting this would require every retail supervisor to have mastered the DSM.
Key Takeaways
- Under FEHA, an employer is charged with knowledge of an undisclosed mental disability only when disability is “the only reasonable interpretation” of the observed behavior — not merely a reasonable or even the most likely interpretation.
- A supervisor’s subjective concern for an employee’s mental state (even recommending a hospital visit) does not alone establish employer knowledge of a disability.
- Employees who want FEHA protections — including reasonable accommodations and the interactive process — should voluntarily disclose their disability. FEHA prohibits retaliation for such disclosure.
- Equating any symptom of a disability with knowledge of the disability itself would vastly expand employer liability beyond FEHA’s purpose and is not the law in California.
- The knowledge standard applies the same way to all three FEHA theories: discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.
Why It Matters
This published opinion provides critical guidance for California employers navigating the difficult line between responding to concerning employee behavior and assuming a disability. The court’s emphatic reaffirmation that “the only reasonable interpretation” standard is objective — not subjective — gives employers some protection against FEHA claims when they terminate employees for workplace misconduct that happens to be caused by an undisclosed disability.
For employees and their attorneys, the case underscores the importance of early disclosure. FEHA’s protections are robust once an employer knows of a disability, but the statute does not require employers to be “clairvoyant.” Practitioners advising employees with mental health conditions should counsel them to disclose proactively, especially since FEHA itself prohibits discrimination based on such disclosure.