California Legal Brief

The Rule of Daniel Husband v. Target Corporation is that an employer cannot be charged with knowledge of an employee's undisclosed mental disability based solely on two incidents of erratic and irrational behavior, under circumstances where the behavior admits of multiple reasonable interpretations other than mental disability.

Appeal from judgment after summary judgment in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Daniel Husband — the Target fulfillment expert who had bipolar disorder but never disclosed it to his employer.

Defendant Respondent was Target Corporation — the employer who terminated Husband after incidents of aggressive and irrational behavior.

The suit sounded in employment discrimination under FEHA. Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Husband worked at Target for 20 months without incident until June-July 2022, when he had two workplace incidents involving erratic behavior, yelling at coworkers, and irrational statements about killing people with words. He was terminated for violating workplace violence policy. Husband had never disclosed his bipolar I disorder to Target.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted summary judgment for Target, ruling that Target had no knowledge of plaintiff's mental disability when it decided to terminate him because there were multiple reasonable interpretations of his conduct other than a mental disability.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether Target had knowledge of plaintiff's bipolar disorder based on observation of his erratic behavior 2. Whether Target discriminated against plaintiff because of his disability 3. Whether Target failed to accommodate or engage in interactive process

The Appellate Court held that an employer will be charged with knowledge of an employee's mental disability only when that disability is "the only reasonable interpretation" of observed facts, and erratic/irrational behavior that could reasonably be attributed to substance use, medication effects, or sleep deprivation does not meet this standard.

The case is inapplicable when the employee has disclosed their disability to the employer, when a third party has informed the employer of the disability, when the symptoms observed are "so obviously manifestations of an underlying disability" that disability "always follows" from the symptoms, or when medical documentation has been provided indicating treatment for mental disability.

The case leaves open what specific threshold of obviousness would be required for imputed knowledge, how the standard applies to other types of mental disabilities beyond bipolar disorder, and whether different factual patterns of erratic behavior might meet the "only reasonable interpretation" standard.