Employers Not Required to Investigate or Accommodate Unknown Disabilities

Reasonable accommodation of a qualified employee’s disability is required under both the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").  Under each law, once an employer is aware of an employee’s disability and its impact on job performance, it must enter into an interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodation is available that will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their job.

But when does an employer become aware of an employee’s disability?  While some disabling conditions are obvious, others are more subtle or look identical to other potential issues.

Employers received guidance on state-law requirements in a recent California appellate court opinion, Husband v. Target Corporation.  In the case, an employee exhibited several instances of “disturbing” behavior such as becoming upset with co-workers, using profanity, hitting himself, stating that work orders “were themselves ‘laughing at him,’” and claiming he had killed his stepmother by speaking a particular word.  This and similar behavior frightened other employees, eventually leading to his termination.

Significantly, despite human resources comments that the employee “get examined by a doctor/psych professional” and that “a hospital would be better than the police” to help him, the employee had not informed management of any disability, requested accommodation, and had not disclosed “any mental health diagnosis.”

After his termination, the former employee hired counsel, who demanded reinstatement due to (what was now disclosed as) a mental disability.  When not reinstated, he sued under the FEHA arguing that Target had not entered into an interactive process to identify, or offered, reasonable accommodations for his bipolar disorder.

Target moved for summary judgment, asking the court to throw out the case because it was not aware of the employee’s bipolar disorder during employment.  The employee argued that Target should have suspected a mental disability and explored it, and potential reasonable accommodation, before firing him.  The court agreed with Target, finding that “the undisputed facts showed plaintiff never disclosed that he suffered from a mental disability or that he sought accommodation.”

The appellate court agreed, holding that employers need not be “clairvoyant” and that – where an employer is not told that an employee has a disability – it will be charged with knowing an employee has a disability only when disability is “the only reasonable interpretation” of events rather that “a reasonable interpretation” or even “the more or most reasonable interpretation.”  Significantly, the court also held that management's (ill-advised) comments that the employee should get examined or go to a hospital were “untrained and “personal” comments by a co-worker that did not mean Target had recognized the existence of a mental disability.  In the end, the court held that disability was not the only reasonable interpretation, as the behavior “could also be reasonably interpreted” as the side effect of other issues such as ingesting illegal substances or sleep deprivation.

This case is important law and instructive for employers.  It establishes that employers are not required to enter into an interactive process just because a physical or mental disability could be the cause of an employee’s performance issues.  It also affirms that employers will not be held to the same standard as physicians and other trained mental health professionals.  But it also highlights that management, particularly human resources personnel, should avoid unnecessary comments referring to potential physical or mental health issues unless there is good reason for it.

Husband v. Target Corporation can be viewed here.

January 14, 2026 Employment Law Update

California employers can expect a full slate of new employment laws in the New Year. Some of these changes require immediate action, such as policy revision and new notices, and all require an employer’s full attention.

Our annual in-person update will cover these new laws, important changes at state and federal agencies, and other developments employers should watch in 2026. And as always, there will be plenty of time for questions. Some covered topics include:

* Changes to the California Equal Pay Act and pay data reporting

* A dramatic new “Workplace Know Your Rights Act” notice to every employee

* State and local minimum wage increases

* New Paid Sick Leave, Victims’ Leave and Paid Family Leave rules

* New collection authority for employee tips and gratuities

* Limits on employment contract terms and employee repayment requirements

* Expanded personnel file and employment training record requirements

* Increased public works pay data disclosure

* State efforts to regulate federally governed bargaining relationships

* Other agency and court developments affecting employers.

Click here to register for the in-person event.

The seminar will be on January 14, 2026, from 9:00 to 11:00 at the Hampton Inn & Suites in Napa. All proceeds benefit the Napa Chamber of Commerce.

Attendees may register via the Napa Chamber of Commerce's seminar page by clicking here or by calling (707) 226-7455. Attendance is $99.00 (Chamber members) and $129.00 (non-members).

The update presentation can be viewed in .pdf form by clicking here.

ICE Raids, Audits and Inspections: Management Should Carefully (!) Review Its Rights and Obligations

Employers remain targeted in the nationwide immigration debate.   Forty years after Congress declared that employers would not be “gatekeepers” – adopting an I-9 process requiring only that documents appear valid to be accepted – federal authorities have yet to create any reliable employment authorization verification system.  The confusion this creates, following decades of inconsistent federal policy and enforcement, leads many employers to seek some reliable guidance given recent increases in ICE raids, immigration audits, and federal prosecutions.

Review Advice Carefully

When weighing advice and options, however, management must carefully balance its own and employees’ rights against authorities’ ability to inspect workplaces.  This is even more important when searching many resources now available online.  Much of this advice is sound, including some printed information sheets employers can provide to employees.  But other advice is not safe or appropriate: for example, one site suggests that employers “train all workers to NOT interact with ICE agents” and that workers “should say nothing [or] ‘talk to my employer’” if questioned.   That is bad advice, as prohibiting individuals from interacting with authorities – or reporting potential legal violations – is a quick route to retaliation claims or even a federal obstruction prosecution.

We recommend that employers adopt a policy addressing all access by law enforcement or government officials (whether immigration, safety, or labor-related). The policy should cover several important factors:

• Stating that no law enforcement representative or other government official is entitled to enter any portion of the premises not generally accessible to the public (such as public parking lots, lobbies, sidewalks and reception areas) without a court-issued (not an 'administrative') warrant. 

• Noting that no law enforcement or other government official is entitled to view documents or other information not already accessible to the public without a court-issued warrant. 

• Directing employees confronted by law enforcement or other government officials without a court-issued warrant to note that they are not authorized to permit access to non-public areas or to provide any non-public information without express permission from specific management representatives.

• Reminding employees that they should never physically interfere with a law enforcement representative or other government official and should always comply with any court-issued warrant presented to them for access to the premises or information. 

• Affirming that the policy does not prohibit employees from discussing wages or other terms and conditions of employment with any person, including government representatives.  

A past presentation covering government access to the workplace can be viewed by clicking here.

California Limits Access and Requires Notice to Employees Before Inspections

California employers should also be familiar with the state Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which prohibits businesses from allowing federal immigration agents to enter non-public areas without a warrant.  Under the law, employers may not allow access to employment records, including I-9 forms, unless ICE has issued a Notice of Inspection (which provides at least 72 hours’ notice before ICE can demand access to records).  While these "access" restrictions have been challenged by the federal government, the law also imposes "informational" requirements that:

• Once a Notice of Inspection is received, the employer must post a notice to all current employees informing when the inspection will occur and the agency demanding the inspection.  This notice must be in any language usually used to communicate with each employee, posted within 72 hours of receiving the Notice of Inspection, and allow employees to receive a copy of the federal notice.  It must also be provided to any union representing employees.  A model notice is published by the Department of Industrial Relations here. 

• If the employer receives notice of any irregularities after the inspection, it must give a copy of relevant parts of the results to each affected employee (and their union, if any) within 72 hours.  The employer must also notify the employee of any meetings scheduled to resolve the issues.

Failure to comply with any part of the law can result in up to a $5,000 fine for the first and a $10,000 fine for subsequent violations. 

Train and Be Prepared!

The current environment creates serious problems for employers.  First, like other law enforcement, ICE officials can be intimidating.  Employees are likely to face pressure to allow immediate access to records or non-public areas, and even threats that interfering with ICE can be a federal crime.  This is especially troubling for industries with seasonal employment, such as agriculture or ski resorts, who regularly employ a high percentage of seasonal migrant labor frequently targeted by ICE.  Training employees to be prepared for ICE visits is essential to avoid violating the new California law under pressure from federal agents.  Second, employers must now navigate competing state and federal requirements – such as whether to reverify an employee upon learning that documents could be falsified, or after receiving benefits or Social Security Number no-match results – each of which carries significant penalties.

California employers are likely to remain caught between state law and aggressive federal immigration policies for the near future.  Knowing each set of requirements, and preparing/training for ICE inspections, remains the most effective way to navigate them.