Appellate Court Rules FEHA Discrimination and Harassment Protections Apply to Student Interns

04.29.2026

On April 15, 2026, the California Court of Appeal ruled student interns are protected under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and the “deliberate indifference” standard, for pursing claims of discrimination and sexual harassment.

In Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District, a postsecondary nursing student participated in a required clinical rotation at a local hospital under a District faculty supervisor. The student alleged, during the spring of 2018, her clinical supervisor subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment, and when she rejected his advances, he assigned her a nonpassing grade, refused to meet with her to discuss it, and required her to repeat the program.

Shortly thereafter, she reported her clinical supervisor’s conduct to the District. The District promptly conducted an investigation but declined to amend the student’s grade at her request. The student ultimately left the District and completed the program at a different institution before the investigation was completed at the end of 2018. The District’s investigation founds the clinical supervisor engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior” by sexually harassing the student and another female nursing student.

The student filed a lawsuit against the District and her clinical supervisor stating claims under FEHA for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and injunctive relief. She also asserted claims under the Civil Code, Education Code, and for negligence.

In 2015, FEHA was amended to extend its protections against sexual harassment and discrimination to unpaid interns, and makes it unlawful “[f]or any person to discriminate against any person … in any apprenticeship training program, any other training program leading to employment, an unpaid internship, or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience to that person” on the basis of any protected characteristic. (Gov. Code § 12940(c).) FEHA also makes it unlawful for any employer to harass an employee, applicant, unpaid intern, or volunteer, or fail to take corrective action when the employer becomes aware of such harassment. (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1).)

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the student’s FEHA claims and the student’s claims under the Education Code. Education Code section 66270 provides that “[n]o person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of … gender … in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student aid.” The provision echoes Title IX’s protections, and a plaintiff must prove the same elements as required under Title IX, including that the school “acted with deliberate indifference” in the face of knowledge of severe, pervasive, or offensive harassment.

The Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the District was deliberately indifferent, despite initiating an investigation promptly, because the District did not correct the student’s grade and forced her to repeat the semester, ultimately leading her to withdraw from the program. Since the student was no longer enrolled when the District concluded its investigation, the investigation conferred no benefit to her, aside from eventually validating her complaints.

This case reinforces that local educational agencies that oversee internship-type programs for students may be liable for violations of FEHA occurring within that program. Furthermore, merely investigating complaints of harassment and discrimination may alone be insufficient to establish the district was not deliberately indifferent toward the complaint.

If you have any questions about the content of this Alert or your agency’s obligations under FEHA or in responding to complaints of sexual harassment, please contact the authors of this Alert or your regular AALRR counsel.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2026 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo