On May 21, 2026, the California Court of Appeal held in Husband v. Target Corporation that, standing alone, an employee’s erratic and irrational behavior is insufficient to put an employer on notice that the employee has a mental disability. This holding provides critical guidance for employers seeking to determine when their obligations to engage in the interactive process are triggered under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
Background
Target Corporation hired Daniel Husband in 2020 as a “fulfillment expert” at a store in Burbank, California. His first 20 months of employment with Target had no negative incidents. But that changed in June 2022, when Husband entered his store during off-duty hours, became agitated at a Target employee, and swore at them. Husband received verbal counseling for this incident. About a month later, Husband arrived for his shift, appearing deflated, and became highly volatile, yelling at co-workers. Husband’s supervisor sent him home, noting the conduct was “out of the ordinary” and “somewhat disturbing.” The supervisor contacted human resources for support, noting that he was concerned about Husband’s mental state. The next day, Husband appeared for his shift shaky and distraught, and told his supervisor that he “killed” his stepmom by speaking a word, and asked his supervisor whether he had killed anyone at the store. The supervisor sent Husband home and recommended he see a doctor or psychological professional. Soon thereafter, Husband and his father returned to the store, where his father allegedly told the attending supervisor that Husband was “fine” and “did not need to see a doctor.”
On July 9, 2022, Target terminated Husband for violating the company’s workplace violence policy. At no point during his employment with Target did Husband inform the company that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, nor did he ever request an accommodation for a mental disability during his employment.
Two months later, through counsel, Husband demanded reinstatement, alleging Target discriminated against him on the basis of his mental disability. Target acknowledged receipt of the correspondence but did not substantively respond.
Husband filed suit against Target for disability discrimination based on a mental disability; failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; and failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA. Target moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Target’s motion; largely on the basis of two undisputed facts. First, Target had no knowledge of Husband’s mental disability when terminating him. Second, Target had a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for terminating Husband—i.e., he had made threats of violence against co-workers. The trial court also held that Husband’s accommodation and interactive process claims failed because he, indisputably, never disclosed his mental disability or the need for accommodation. Husband appealed.
Court of Appeal’s Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Target’s lack of knowledge of Husband’s mental disability was the primary focus of the Court’s opinion. Although Husband’s supervisor saw him act erratically and emotionally in July 2022—which, the Court noted, might be indicative of bipolar disorder—it was not the only reasonable interpretation of Husband’s behavior. The Court observed that Husband’s actions could also be reasonably interpreted as the side effect of ingesting illegal substances or a manifestation of sleep deprivation. The supervisor’s subjective belief that Husband needed help did not change the outcome. According to the Court, giving controlling weight to a colleague’s untrained, subjective personal opinions about one’s mental condition would cause employer liability under FEHA to turn on the vagaries of the workplace, a co-worker’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of mental illnesses, and the co-worker’s willingness to speculate. Ultimately, the Court held, Target lacked knowledge of Husband’s mental disability.
Husband raised several counterarguments, all of which the Court rejected. Most critically, the Court rejected Husband’s argument that awareness of conduct caused by a disability amounts to knowledge of the disability itself; and that Target’s awareness of his behavior therefore constituted knowledge of his bipolar disorder. The Court held that this standard would improperly replace the established test—whether the only reasonable interpretation of the observed symptoms is a mental disability—with one that equates any single symptom with knowledge of a disability. That approach, the Court warned, would assume every front-line supervisor is trained to diagnose mental illness, vastly expanding FEHA liability beyond its intended scope.
The Court concluded by reinforcing this framework. Employer knowledge of a mental disability is imputed when the employer receives documentation from a medical professional indicating treatment for such a disability, or when observed symptoms are consistent only with a disability. Observation of mere “erratic” behavior is insufficient.
Takeaways
The Court’s decision reinforces well-established standards governing when an employer is deemed to have knowledge of an employee’s disability under FEHA. Although this case arose in the context of mental disabilities, the principles apply equally to physical disability claims. Employers should maintain clear policies encouraging employees to voluntarily disclose disabilities and request accommodations. As the Court noted, several Target employees indicated they would have accommodated Husband’s bipolar disorder had they known of it. Proactive communication channels—such as onboarding materials and accessible human resources contacts—can help facilitate timely disclosures.
Given the inherently fact-specific nature of whether an employee’s conduct triggers imputed knowledge of a disability, employers should consult with experienced labor and employment counsel before taking adverse employment actions against employees exhibiting unusual or concerning behavior in the workplace.