Takeaway: Legal obligations to accommodate or engage in the interactive process arise only when an employer has notice of a disability. Employers are not required to infer a disability from unusual workplace behavior unless the disability is the only reasonable explanation for the conduct. Consistent documentation and responses to workplace safety concerns remain critical.
A California appeals court affirmed summary judgment for an employer, holding that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) did not impose liability when the employee never disclosed his bipolar disorder and the employer lacked knowledge of the condition.
FEHA prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations and engage in the interactive process once they become aware of a qualifying disability. The case centered on whether the employer should have inferred a mental disability from the employee’s workplace behavior.
The plaintiff began working for the retailer in October 2020 as a fulfillment employee and had no workplace issues for approximately 20 months. In June and July 2022, the plaintiff engaged in several incidents that caused supervisors and co-workers to become concerned about his behavior and emotional state. The employer ultimately terminated him for violating its workplace violence policy.
Before the termination decision, the plaintiff never informed the employer that he had bipolar I disorder and never requested accommodation for any mental disability. After his termination, the plaintiff submitted a doctor’s note stating that he could return to work. The note did not disclose any disability. The plaintiff later sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. It concluded there was no evidence the employer knew about the alleged disability and found that the termination was based on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason related to workplace conduct and safety concerns.
A California Court of Appeal, affirmed. The court explained that employer knowledge of a disability is required for FEHA liability. When an employee does not disclose a disability, knowledge may be inferred only if the disability is the sole reasonable explanation for the employee’s behavior.
The court concluded that standard was not met here. Although the plaintiff’s conduct was troubling, the court found it could have had several possible explanations other than bipolar disorder, including drug use, medication interactions, or sleep deprivation. The court stated that FEHA does not require employers to act as “clairvoyants” regarding undisclosed disabilities.
Because the employer lacked knowledge of the plaintiff’s condition, the court held that the discrimination, accommodation, and interactive-process claims failed as a matter of law.
Husband v. Target Corp., Cal. Ct. App., No. B342334 (May 21, 2026).
Was this resource helpful?
Validate your HR expertise
Earning your SHRM-CP credential makes you a recognized expert and leader in the HR field.
Related Content
Transform HR with mobile technology to streamline workflows, enhance communication, and boost employee engagement across distributed teams.
A new study found that talent development practitioners believe performance-based assessments are more effective at measuring employee learning outcomes than knowledge tests.
As AI makes deeper inroads into organizations, employee concerns about the technology continue to grow. Here's how HR leaders can address the fear of AI among their own staff, as well as in the wider organization.