26 May EMPLOYER ONLY LIABLE FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON KNOWN DISABILITIES
Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees with physical or mental disabilities. Employers also have an affirmative obligation to reasonably accommodate disabled employees. In Husband v. Target Corporation, the Court of Appeal recently addressed an employer’s obligations to employees with disabilities if the employee does not expressly disclose his or her medical condition but engages in behavior that arguably puts the employer on notice that a disability exists.
Daniel Husband was employed by Target at a store in Burbank. Husband was diagnosed with a bipolar disorder but never informed Target of his condition. After working for Target for almost two years without any problems, Husband was involved in a series of incidents over the course of several weeks where he exhibited very strange behavior, including use of profanity, becoming visibly upset and emotional, acting erratic, and making disturbing statements. Husband’s supervisor expressed concern about his mental state, and suggested that he seek professional help. Target ultimately decided to terminate Husband’s employment as a result of his conduct.
Husband sued Target for disability discrimination under the FEHA, alleging he was discriminated against as a result of his bipolar condition – a recognized medical condition – and that Target failed to accommodate his mental disability. The trial court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Target did not have actual knowledge of Husband’s undisclosed bipolar condition, and had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to terminate Husband based on his conduct.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of Husband’s FEHA discrimination action. When an employee has not expressly disclosed the existence of a disability to his employer, the Court held an employer’s knowledge of the disability will be inferred if the disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts. Likewise, for reasonable accommodation claims under FEHA, an employer’s knowledge of a disability is only inferred if the disability is obvious or its observed symptoms are so clearly indicative of an underlying disability that the existence of the disability always follows from the observed symptoms. Under this standard, Husband’s erratic behavior was found to be insufficient to infer Target’s knowledge of his bipolar condition.
Disability discrimination claims can be very challenging cases. Juries are often sympathetic to employees with disabilities, and the legal standards for disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations can present employers with a high burden to overcome. The Husband decision provides employers with another potential defense in cases where the employee did not expressly disclose the existence of a disability. Because the risk of an adverse outcome in similar cases raises the stakes for both sides, this latest decision makes early mediation of disability cases even more compelling.
