When Are California Employers Considered to Have Notice of a Disability Under the FEHA?
A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal clarifies when an employer may be considered aware of an employee’s undisclosed disability for purposes of liability under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The court explained that an employer’s knowledge of a disability may be inferred from an employee’s conduct only when the existence of a disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts.
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) (“FEHA”), employers may face liability for: (1) discriminating against an employee because of a physical or mental disability; (2) failing to provide reasonable accommodation for a known disability; and (3) failing to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations.
A key element across these theories of liability is knowledge. An employer generally cannot be held liable for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or failure to engage in the interactive process unless the employer knows the employee has a disability. Courts have recognized this principle in cases such as Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1247, and the statutory language of Government Code section 12940, which refers to a “known” disability.
However, California courts have also recognized that knowledge of a disability does not always require a direct disclosure from the employee. In some circumstances, an employer may be considered aware of a disability based on other information available to it.
Earlier cases addressed this issue cautiously. In Brundage v. Hahn (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 228, 237, the court held that knowledge of a disability may be inferred “only . . . when the fact of disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts.”
Later decisions appeared to articulate a somewhat broader approach. For example, Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 601 explained that an employer may know an employee has a disability when the employee discloses the condition or when the employer otherwise becomes aware of it, such as through a third party or by observation. Under that framework, an employer needs awareness of the underlying facts, even if it does not fully understand their legal significance.
A May 2026 decision from the California Court of Appeal, Second District, addressed situations where neither the employee nor a third party informs the employer about the condition. In Husband v. Target Corporation, case no. B342334, the court applied the more restrictive knowledge standard described in Brundage.
In that case, the employee, Mr. Husband, had undisclosed bipolar disorder. He was terminated following several workplace incidents during which he made irrational comments and acted aggressively. These events prompted his supervisor to express concern about his mental state in an email to management. After one incident, Mr. Husband was sent home with a recommendation that he seek evaluation from a medical or mental health professional.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Addressing the disability discrimination claim, the court reiterated that an employer can only discriminate based on a disability if it knows the employee has one. The court explained that when neither the employee nor a third party discloses a mental disability, knowledge may be imputed to the employer through observation only when the underlying facts make disability the only reasonable explanation.
The court then considered the employee’s claim for failure to accommodate. It concluded that the duties to provide reasonable accommodation and to engage in the interactive process also arise only when the employer is aware of the employee’s disability. While notice from an employee is not the only way those duties may arise—information from third parties or clear observations may also suffice—the threshold remains demanding when knowledge is based solely on observation.
According to the court, an employer will be considered to have knowledge of a disability through observation only when the observed symptoms are so clearly manifestations of an underlying disability that the existence of a disability necessarily follows from those symptoms.
Applying that standard, the court determined that the evidence showed Mr. Husband had behaved emotionally and irrationally in the workplace. However, bipolar disorder was not the only reasonable explanation for his behavior. Workplace stress, personal circumstances, or other factors could also have explained the conduct. The personal suspicions of supervisors regarding possible mental illness were not sufficient to establish legal notice of a disability.
The decision illustrates an important point for both employers and employees. Erratic or concerning behavior in the workplace, standing alone, may not provide the level of notice required for an employer’s duties under the FEHA to arise. Unless the behavior clearly indicates the presence of a disability, the law may not treat the employer as having knowledge of that condition.
The attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law, PC, represent employees in a wide range of workplace matters, including disability discrimination claims. Individuals with questions about issues at work may contact the firm to discuss their situation through its confidential intake process.
