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:

...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMirgFBVV95cUxOSDZ2Q3F2OGkzd2tWTTktNmts...