A nursing program director sexually harassed a student in his clinical program, retaliated when she rejected him, and forced her out of the program. Then the school argued in court that she had no right to sue because she was a student, not an employee. A California appellate court just said otherwise — and published the ruling so every court in the state has to follow it.
If you are a nursing student, student teacher, social work intern, or other trainee who has been sexually harassed or retaliated against during a clinical placement or fieldwork rotation, this ruling matters directly to you.
In Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District (G064668), the Fourth Appellate District reversed a San Bernardino County Superior Court grant of summary judgment, holding that a postsecondary nursing student performing required clinical rotations qualifies as an “unpaid intern” under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The opinion was certified for publication on April 14, 2026.
What Happened to Jessie Walton
Jessie Walton enrolled at Victor Valley Community College District as a nursing student in 2017. Her program required clinical rotations at local hospitals — mandatory components of her coursework supervised by District faculty. During her spring 2018 rotations, Diego Garcia, the District’s nursing program director, became her clinical supervisor.
Garcia allegedly subjected Walton to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment during those rotations and repeatedly pressed her to enter a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades. When Walton refused, Garcia gave her a failing grade and declined to meet with her to discuss his decision.
In June 2018, Walton sent the District a letter detailing Garcia’s conduct. The District placed Garcia on administrative leave and retained a third-party firm to investigate. What followed was inadequate by any measure. The District refused to correct Walton’s grade. Walton repeated the semester. Receiving no resolution, she withdrew from the program in September 2018 and completed her nursing degree at a different school out of state.
The District’s third-party investigator ultimately issued a 79-page report finding that Garcia had engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior” and had sexually harassed both Walton and at least one other female student. Human resources recommended removing Garcia from his tenured position. He did not return to teach.
Walton filed FEHA claims for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, and retaliation, along with claims under the Education Code and for negligence. The District moved for summary judgment on a threshold question: she was a student, not an employee, so FEHA didn’t apply. The San Bernardino Superior Court agreed. Walton appealed.
The Legal Question: Can Students Sue for Sexual Harassment Under FEHA?
The California Legislature amended FEHA in 2014, effective January 1, 2015, to extend its harassment and discrimination protections to “unpaid interns.” Government Code section 12940 now prohibits sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation against an unpaid intern. The implementing regulations define “unpaid intern” to include students and trainees working without pay in a limited-duration program to provide work experience.
The District argued that Walton was doing coursework, not an internship — that her student status placed her outside FEHA’s reach. The Court of Appeal rejected that framing entirely.
The Legislature that passed the unpaid intern amendment (AB 1443) expressly noted that “several professional graduate programs require or at least typically include some type of internship placement before completion, including . . . nursing.” The Legislature understood that interns are frequently students. The two categories are not mutually exclusive.
The court held that a postsecondary nursing student performing a clinical rotation at a hospital qualifies as an “unpaid intern” under FEHA. Her “student” status does not strip her of FEHA protection.
The court also rejected the District’s argument that it could not be liable because Walton was physically located at the hospitals rather than on the District’s own campus. The evidence showed that District faculty — Garcia among them — supervised Walton’s clinical work and controlled the details of her performance. That supervisory relationship brought the District within FEHA’s reach.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court on every disputed ground. On standing, the court held Walton qualifies as an unpaid intern under FEHA and can pursue her harassment and retaliation claims. On Government Claims Act notice, the court held that Walton’s attorney’s 13-page December 2018 letter — detailing Garcia’s alleged misconduct and outlining her damages — was sufficient notice even though it was labeled a confidential settlement communication. On deliberate indifference under Education Code section 66270, the court found that the District’s investigation did not shield it from liability: by the time the report was completed, Walton had already left the program, and deposition evidence indicated the District had received prior reports about Garcia harassing other nursing students. All of those questions go to a jury.
The court published the opinion specifically to provide statewide clarity on unpaid intern standing under FEHA.
Who Is Protected: Do You Have a Sexual Harassment or Retaliation Claim?
Walton confirms that FEHA protects students who perform required work-based training as part of a professional program. You may have a claim against a school, clinical site, or supervising institution if you are or were:
- A nursing student harassed during a hospital or clinic rotation
- A medical or dental student harassed during a clinical placement
- A social work student harassed during a field placement or practicum
- A student teacher harassed during a teaching placement or student teaching assignment
- A law student harassed during an externship or clinical program
- A physical therapy, occupational therapy, or allied health student harassed at a clinical site
- Any other graduate or professional student performing required unpaid fieldwork under supervisor control
The decision also means that a school cannot escape liability simply by pointing to a formal investigation it launched after you were already gone. If the institution failed to protect you — or acted only after the damage was done — that failure is itself a basis for liability.
You do not need to have been an employee to have a FEHA claim. You do not need to have completed the program. You do not need to have filed a formal complaint with the school before speaking with an attorney.
Talk to a California Sexual Harassment Lawyer — Free Consultation
California’s FEHA gives harassed and retaliated-against interns and trainees the same remedies available to employees: lost wages, emotional distress damages, and attorneys’ fees. The statute of limitations on FEHA claims is three years from the date of the harassment or retaliation — but do not wait to find out where you stand.
King & Siegel LLP represents California employees, interns, and trainees in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation cases. We take these cases on contingency — you pay nothing unless we recover for you.
Contact King & Siegel LLP today for a free, confidential consultation. Tell us what happened. We will tell you what your options are.
Julian Burns King graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and founded King & Siegel in 2018. As head of the Firm’s discrimination and harassment practice areas, she champions the rights of working parents and victims of workplace discrimination and harassment. She has been recognized as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers annually since 2018 and has recovered tens of millions of dollars on behalf of her clients.