The California Court of Appeal, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Scott, held that Jessie Walton could pursue FEHA claims against the District after nursing program director Diego Garcia allegedly subjected her to verbal and physical sexual harassment during her spring 2018 clinical rotations, tried to force her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades, and retaliated by giving her a non-passing grade when she rejected his advances.
The court rejected the trial court's conclusion that Walton lacked standing because she was not an unpaid intern. The court explained that the Legislature understands many unpaid interns are students, noting that when expanding FEHA protections, the Legislature explained that many "internships are part of a more formalized educational or vocational program," including nursing programs.
The panel also criticized the trial court's evidentiary ruling. Justice Scott wrote that "sustaining the objection to counsel's declaration was an abuse of discretion" because counsel could have corrected the missing penalty of perjury subscription during the hearing, and "refusing to permit a cure hamstrung Walton's ability to oppose a dispositive motion."
Walton complained to the District about Garcia's conduct in June 2018. The District placed Garcia on administrative leave and commissioned a third-party investigation, which found Garcia had engaged in "highly inappropriate behavior" by sexually harassing Walton and another female student. But by the time the investigation concluded in late 2018, Walton had already withdrawn from the program and pursued her nursing degree out of state after the District refused to correct her grade.
On Walton's deliberate indifference claim under Education Code section 66270, the court held triable issues remained despite the 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. The court emphasized that excluded deposition evidence indicated "the District had received previous reports about Garcia sexually harassing other nursing students."
The court also rejected the District's Government Claims Act defense, holding that Walton's 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.
The panel reversed summary judgment on Walton's five FEHA claims -- sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and injunctive relief -- as well as her Education Code and negligence claims. The court ordered summary adjudication for the District only on Walton's Civil Code claims, which she did not challenge on appeal. 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."