Target notched a win under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in Husband v. Target Corp that may extend to other California employers.
In short, Husband reinforced the principle that an employer does not have disability-related FEHA liability when it lacks knowledge of an employee’s disability or desire for accommodation at the time of taking an adverse employment action.
Background on Husband v. Target Corp
- Husband suffered from bipolar disorder but allegedly did not disclose his diagnosis to Target or request a workplace accommodation.
- After nearly two years of employment without incident, the employee allegedly engaged in several episodes of erratic workplace conduct, including making allegedly disturbing and irrational statements, hitting himself, and yelling at coworkers. This alleged conduct caused supervisors to express concern amongst themselves and HR about his mental state, including the belief that Husband “needed help,” should “get examined by a doctor/psych professional,” and that “a hospital would be better than police.”
- Following an episode of this alleged conduct, Target terminated Husband for violation of its workplace violence policy.
Claims and Procedural History
- Husband sued Target under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Target.
Appellate Court Holding
In affirming summary judgment for Target, the appellate court held:
- An employer cannot be liable for FEHA disability-related claims if it has neither actual knowledge (whether from the employee or a third party) nor imputed knowledge of the employee’s disability.
- An employer does not have imputed knowledge of a disability unless a disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the underlying facts. As applied to the facts, the court explained:
–Husband’s erratic workplace conduct could have also been reasonably interpreted as “the side effect of ingesting illegal substances or a combination of prescribed medications or a manifestation of sleep deprivation”; and
–The reasonable interpretation standard is an objective one, so the supervisor’s statements expressing concern for Husband’s mental state should not be given controlling weight given their “subjective” and “untrained” nature.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
- When an employer – which may include the relevant supervisor(s), management, and/or human resources department – has not been informed of an employee’s disability by the employee or a third-party (such as a healthcare provider or a family member) and the employee has not requested a workplace accommodation, the employer may not be required to assume the employee has a disability. This holds where there are reasonable non-disability-related interpretations of the employee’s conduct or performance. Further, in that situation, the employer may not lose its defense even if individual supervisors, management, and/or human resources personnel speculate that the employee’s conduct or performance might be caused by an undisclosed disability. Despite that, employer personnel may wish to discuss their observations with in-house or outside counsel for attorney-client privilege purposes.
- The clarity of the Husband holding may have been aided by its specific fact pattern – i.e., the combination of the employee’s particular diagnosis, the severity of his workplace conduct, and the potential non-disability-related explanations for that conduct that violated the employer’s policy. Accordingly, employers may wish to proceed with caution in fact-intensive matters and should not assume that the Husband holding would apply with equal force in potentially more nebulous situations.