Employers are often placed in difficult situations when an employee suddenly begins displaying unusual, emotional, or erratic behavior at work. In many cases, the employee has never disclosed a medical condition, requested an accommodation, or provided any indication that a disability may exist.
In industries involving high stress, public interaction, safety-sensitive work, or demanding schedules, these situations can become even more difficult to navigate. Employers are often left trying to determine whether the conduct reflects misconduct, stress, fatigue, poor judgment, or a legally protected medical condition.
So when does an employer’s legal obligation to engage in the interactive process actually begin?
A recent California appellate decision provides important guidance. In Husband v. Target Corporation (2026) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (“Husband”) the Court confirmed that employers are not expected to diagnose medical or mental health conditions based solely on workplace observations. Instead, an employer will only be deemed to have “knowledge” of a disability when the employee’s condition is the only reasonable explanation for the behavior observed.
The FEHA Interactive Process Requirement
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) (“FEHA”) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known disabilities and engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to determine whether an effective accommodation is available. However, those obligations are generally triggered only after the employer becomes aware of the disability.
Traditionally, employer knowledge arises in three ways: the employee discloses the condition, a third party informs the employer, or the employer objectively becomes aware of the disability through observation. The Husband decision focused on that third category and addressed an important question: when does workplace behavior alone put an employer on notice of a disability?
The Facts Behind the Case
The employee in Husband suffered from bipolar disorder but never informed the employer of his condition or requested accommodations. After nearly two years without incident, the employee experienced several troubling workplace episodes.
During one incident, the employee became visibly upset with a coworker while off duty in the store as a customer. About a month later, the employee arrived at work appearing emotionally distressed, angry, and irrational. He discussed self-harm, claimed inventory orders were “laughing at him,” and later made disturbing comments about harming others through his words. Supervisors became concerned for his wellbeing and encouraged him to seek medical treatment.
Target ultimately terminated the employee for violating its workplace violence policy. At the time the termination decision was made, the employee had still not disclosed that he suffered from bipolar disorder or requested any accommodation.
The employee later sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA.
The Court’s Decision
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal sided with the employer.
The Court ruled that when an employer’s alleged knowledge of a disability is based solely on observation, knowledge will only be inferred when “the fact of disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts.” While one possible interpretation of the employee’s conduct was a mental disability, the Court explained there were several other reasonable explanations for the behavior, including possible substance use, medication side effects, or sleep deprivation.
The Court also rejected the argument that a supervisor’s belief that the employee “needed help” automatically established employer knowledge of a disability. Instead, the standard is objective and based on the facts actually known to the employer, not the subjective impressions or speculation of an untrained supervisor or coworker. Because multiple reasonable interpretations of the employee’s behavior existed, the employer could not legally be charged with knowledge of a disability.
The Court further explained that FEHA does not require employers to be “clairvoyant” or to assume that unusual workplace behavior automatically means an employee is suffering from a protected disability.
Employer Takeaway
This decision is an important reminder that employers are not expected to be medical professionals or mental health experts. Observing troubling behavior does not automatically mean an employer is legally deemed to know an employee has a protected disability.
The case also confirms that employers may take reasonable, compassionate actions, such as sending an employee home, removing an employee from a worksite for safety reasons, or recommending medical treatment, without automatically triggering liability under FEHA.
At the same time, employers should proceed carefully when handling these situations. One of the biggest lessons from this case is the importance of documentation. If it is not documented, it did not happen.
Courts closely examine what the employer actually knew at the time decisions were made, and contemporaneous documentation often becomes critical evidence in defending employment claims. Employers should carefully document workplace behavior, policy violations, safety concerns, management observations, and the steps taken in response to unusual incidents.
For employers in safety-sensitive industries, including security, healthcare, transportation, logistics, and retail environments, this distinction is particularly important. Supervisors regularly encounter employees who may appear stressed, fatigued, emotional, or overwhelmed. The law does not require employers to diagnose employees based on isolated workplace behavior, but it does require employers to respond reasonably to the facts actually known at the time.
Ultimately, Husband reinforces a balanced principle under California law: employers must reasonably respond to known disabilities, but the law does not require employers to infer or diagnose medical conditions based on ambiguous workplace behavior alone.
If you have questions about how these developments affect your business, your attorneys at Bradley + Wellerstein LLP are here to help.
Jaimee K. Wellerstein is a Co-managing Partner, representing employers across all aspects of employment law. She works closely with clients to develop proactive strategies to prevent workplace disputes, provides legal counsel and training for management and employees, and conducts internal compliance audits. Ms. Wellerstein also leads investigations into employee allegations and, when necessary, aggressively defends clients in state and federal courts, administrative hearings, arbitrations, and mediations. A skilled litigator and negotiator, she is also a frequent speaker on employment and contract law. Get in touch with Jaimee