California Court of Appeal Confirms that Employers Need Not Accommodate Disabilities Of Which They Are Unaware

A California Court of Appeal recently affirmed that employers have no duty to infer the existence of a disability, engage in the interactive process, or make reasonable accommodations based solely on an employee’s erratic or aggressive conduct. The court held that such obligations only arise if the existence of a disability is “the only reasonable interpretation” of the employee’s behavior. This decision provides important guidance for California employers navigating how to manage employees who exhibit concerning behavior in the workplace.

Factual Summary

The plaintiff, Daniel Husband, worked as a fulfillment expert at a Target store. Husband had been diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder, but never disclosed this condition to Target. For approximately 20 months, Husband performed his job without incident.

Then, Husband exhibited concerning behavior in three incidents over the course of one month:

• First Incident (June 9, 2022): Husband entered the store while off duty and became visibly upset at another employee, who said Husband “used profanity.” A supervisor verbally counseled Husband, and Target later issued Husband a written counseling memo. 

• Second Incident (July 7, 2022): Husband arrived for his shift appearing “very deflated.” He suddenly became angry, reported that he had been hitting himself in the temple, and stated that the store’s inventory orders were “laughing at him.” He also became highly emotional, yelled at a coworker, and appeared visibly upset. His supervisor sent him home and later emailed leadership expressing concern for Husband’s “mental state.”

• Third Incident (July 8, 2022): The following day, Husband returned to work appearing “shaky,” “distraught,” and breathing heavily. He told his supervisor that he believed he had “killed” his stepmother by speaking a word and asked coworkers whether he had killed anyone at the store. His behavior was described as “very disturbing” and “erratic.” The supervisor again sent him home with a recommendation that he be evaluated by a “doctor/psych professional.” Indeed, the supervisor believed Husband “needed help” and that “a hospital would be better than the police.” The supervisor again documented the incident in follow-up emails to management.

Store leadership reviewed the incidents and terminated Husband’s employment based on his violation of Target’s workplace violence policy. At no point during his employment did Husband disclose his Bipolar I disorder or request accommodation. 

After termination, Husband attempted to challenge the decision. He submitted a medical note stating only that he had been “evaluated and deemed able to return to work.” The note did not state that Husband had been diagnosed with any disability or medical condition. He later sought reinstatement, but Target upheld the termination.

Husband sued Target under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”), asserting claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. The trial court granted summary judgment for Target, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision (finding that Target lacked knowledge of any disability requiring accommodation).

Key Takeaways for Employers

This decision confirms that employers have no obligation to reasonably accommodate disabilities of which they are unaware. Below are practical takeaways from the court’s reasoning.

1. Document the Erratic Behavior at Issue and Consider Potential Causes: The Court of Appeal relied on the established standard from Brundage v. Hahn, 57 Cal.App.4th 228 (1997), holding that an employer will be charged with constructive knowledge of a disability through observation only when the observed symptoms are “so obviously manifestations of an underlying disability” that the existence of a disability “always follows” from the observed symptoms. That is, when a disability is “the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts.” 

In this case, the Court found that while Husband’s conduct was consistent with Bipolar disorder, it was equally consistent with other explanations, including side effects from ingesting illegal substances, an adverse reaction to prescribed medications, or extreme sleep deprivation. However, the Court also noted that some behaviors can be solely attributable to a disability (e.g., seizures). 

Thus, when faced with erratic behavior from employees, employers should clearly document the conduct at issue and consider whether a disability is the only cause of such behavior. If so, the employer may need to initiate the interactive process.

2. While Best to Avoid Opining on the Erratic Behavior, Such Comments Might Not Impute Knowledge of a Disability: The Court of Appeal rejected the significance of the supervisor’s comment that Husband “needed help” and that “a hospital would be better than the police.” The Court characterized that assessment as a “subjective and professedly non-expert opinion” from an untrained co-worker, not an objective basis for imputing disability knowledge under the law. Thus, while subjective comments can create risk for employers, mundane opinions by other employees about “needing help” or a “hospital” should be insufficient to impute disability knowledge on the employer. 

3. Employers Remain Able to Discipline Employees Who Engage in Disruptive Behavior or Threaten Workplace Safety: In this case, the employer issued a written warning and later terminated the employee for the inappropriate workplace conduct (using profanity towards a coworker and talking about killing people in the store). This decision confirms employers’ ability to discipline and/or terminate employees whose behavior is threatening or otherwise violates the employer’s policies.

4. Employers Should Consider Accommodation Requests and Medical Notes Before Taking Adverse Action: The Court here emphasized that Husband never disclosed his Bipolar I disorder, requested accommodation, or submitted a medical note putting Target on notice of his disability. Employers, the Court emphasized, are not expected to be “clairvoyant” or to have mastered the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual enumerating all mental illnesses and their symptoms. However, the Court distinguished this case from others in which the employee had submitted a medical note indicating mental health treatment or symptoms such as frequent seizures that are consistent only with disability. 

Thus, before taking adverse action for erratic behavior, employers should consider whether the employee has placed the employer on notice of their disability through other means, such as an accommodation request or medical note—even if the disability itself is not specified in the note. 

So, while this ruling should give employers some peace of mind when considering disciplinary action for employees exhibiting erratic and threatening behavior who have not otherwise disclosed a disability, this area of the law requires a fact-intensive inquiry. Employers should consider working with competent counsel to help guide decisions surrounding disciplinary action, including terminations, to minimize risk of liability.

Subscribe to Farella Insights by topic and author here.