The dispute centers on allegations that Diego Garcia, the district's nursing program director, subjected student Jessie Walton to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment during her spring 2018 clinical rotations. Walton alleged Garcia tried to force her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades and allegedly retaliated by giving her a non-passing grade when she rebuffed his advances.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Scott rejected the trial court's conclusion that Walton lacked standing because she was a student rather than an unpaid intern. The court explained that the Legislature understands many unpaid interns are also students, noting that when expanding FEHA to protect unpaid interns, the Legislature explained that many "internships are part of a more formalized educational or vocational program," including nursing programs. "Thus, a postsecondary nursing student like Walton doing a clinical rotation at a hospital qualifies as an 'unpaid intern' under FEHA," Justice Scott wrote.
The appeals court also criticized the trial court's evidentiary ruling, finding it abused its discretion by excluding Walton's attorney's declaration for a correctible omission. The court noted the attorney could have corrected the missing penalty of perjury subscription during the hearing and that "refusing to permit a cure hamstrung Walton's ability to oppose a dispositive motion."
On the issue of deliberate indifference under Education Code section 66270, the court held triable issues remained despite the district's investigation. Justice Scott noted that "the investigation conferred no benefit on Walton, aside from belatedly validating her complaints" since she had already left the program, and that excluded deposition evidence indicated "the District had received previous reports about Garcia sexually harassing other nursing students," which "further confirms that a question of fact exists as to whether the District acted with deliberate indifference."
The court also rejected the district's argument that Walton failed to comply with Government Claims Act notice requirements. The court held her attorney's 13-page December 2018 letter detailing Garcia's misconduct and damages provided sufficient notice, even though it was labeled as a confidential settlement communication. Justice Scott explained that the letter "provided the District with the information needed to investigate Garcia's alleged misconduct" and met the statutory purpose.
The appeals court ordered the trial court to grant summary adjudication for the district only on Walton's Civil Code claims, which she did not challenge on appeal. The court reversed summary judgment on her five FEHA claims for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and injunctive relief, as well as her Education Code and negligence claims.
The opinion was certified for publication "to provide needed clarity on an unpaid intern's standing to pursue claims under FEHA, and further on the 'deliberate indifference' element of a section 66270 claim."