Strange Behavior Isn’t Enough: When is a Disability Disclosed to an Employer?
When it comes to an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process with employees, the employer’s knowledge becomes an important focal point. That is, exactly when, if at all, did the employer know that the employee has a disability.
A recent California Court of Appeals case, Husband v. Target (2026) Cal. App. LEXIS 320, clarifies that an employee’s erratic or unusual behavior alone is insufficient to impute knowledge of a disability to an employer, affirming that employers are not expected to diagnose medical conditions.
The Facts
Target hired the plaintiff in October 2020. Neither at the time of hire nor at any point thereafter did the plaintiff disclose that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. In the summer of 2022, the plaintiff exhibited several instances of odd behavior:
On June 9, 2022, the plaintiff came into the Target as a customer, became visibly upset with another employee, and allegedly “used profanity.”
On July 7, 2022, the plaintiff hit himself in his temple during work and accused his work orders (yes, work orders, that is not a typo) of “laughing at him.” The plaintiff’s supervisor sent him home for the day and later shared with management that he was concerned for the plaintiff’s “mental state.”
On July 8, 2022, the plaintiff came to work “shaky” and “distraught,” claiming he killed his stepmother with a word and asking if he had killed anyone at Target, leading his supervisor to send him home to seek medical or psychiatric help. The plaintiff later returned with his father, who insisted the plaintiff “was fine.”
On July 9, 2022, during a meeting with HR regarding his frightening behavior, the plaintiff allegedly yelled profanities and stormed out. Later that day, management decided to terminate the plaintiff for violating Target’s workplace violence policy.
On July 10, 2022, before being notified of his termination, the plaintiff arrived barefoot, stole a set of store security keys, threw them at an employee while shouting “I don’t want this shit!” and began disrobing before marching away (captured on surveillance).
On July 18, 2022, the plaintiff submitted medical certification concluding he was “able to return to work.” Target informed the plaintiff that day of the decision to end his employment.
The plaintiff retained counsel, requested reinstatement, and alleged mental disability discrimination. Target did not respond, prompting the plaintiff to file a complaint.
The Outcome
As a threshold issue, employers who have knowledge of an employee’s disability are required under FEHA to engage in the interactive process to determine how the employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated.
The trial court determined that the plaintiff’s disability claims could not proceed because Target had no knowledge of his disability when it decided to terminate him. Per the trial court, there was “more than one reasonable interpretation of plaintiff’s conduct at work,” and Target genuinely believed that the plaintiff had made “threats of violence against coworkers” in violation of policy.
The Court of Appeal affirmed and established several critical guardrails regarding imputed knowledge under FEHA:
- Behavioral Ambiguity: Irrational behavior does not automatically prove a mental disability. Such behavior can also reasonably be explained by alternative factors like substance abuse, medication interactions, or severe sleep deprivation.
- The Layperson Standard: A supervisor’s subjective and professedly non-expert opinion that an employee “might be suffering from an unknown medical issue” does not satisfy the legal threshold. It does not mean a mental disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the conduct.
- No Subjective Speculation: Legal liability under FEHA cannot hang on the subjective speculation of a coworker or supervisor who lacks formal medical expertise.
- Protecting the Legal Bar: The Court firmly rejected the argument that acting out of the ordinary automatically puts an employer on notice of a disability, noting that adopting such a rule would set the legal bar far too low.
The Takeaway
The ruling in Husband v. Target is a welcome shift from the ever-growing burden on California employers. Nevertheless, where an employee is acting out of the ordinary, employers should still exercise caution and consult with counsel before making any definitive employment decisions.
Molly K. Thorpe is an Employment Attorney at Lewitt Hackman.