Are Unpaid Student Interns Protected From Sexual Harassment Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act?
/
Yes — and a California appeals court ruling makes clear that a nursing student completing required clinical rotations can qualify as an unpaid intern protected under FEHA, even when that work is part of her academic program. A supervisor's sexual harassment of a student during a clinical rotation led to this landmark decision, which expands protections for interns, trainees, and clinical participants across the state.
Case: Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
Case No.: G064668
Get to Know the Plaintiff: Walton v. Victor Valley CCD
Jessie Walton enrolled in the nursing program at Victor Valley Community College District and was required to complete clinical rotations at two local hospitals as part of her coursework. Those rotations were supervised by District faculty — including Diego Garcia, the director of the nursing program. Walton alleges that Garcia subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment throughout her clinical rotation and retaliated against her when she rejected his advances, awarding her a failing grade and refusing to meet with her to discuss it. After reporting the conduct, Walton withdrew from the program and completed her nursing degree out of state. Through her attorneys, she notified the District of her intent to pursue legal claims and sought damages for the harm the harassment caused to her education and her career.
Get to Know the Defendant: Walton v. Victor Valley CCD
The Victor Valley Community College District governs the community college serving the High Desert region of San Bernardino County, including its nursing program. As part of that program, the District placed nursing students in clinical rotations at local hospitals and supervised them through District faculty. After Walton reported Garcia's conduct, the District placed him on administrative leave and retained an outside investigator. That investigation confirmed Garcia had engaged in "highly inappropriate behavior" by harassing Walton and at least one other female student. Garcia did not return to teach for the District. Despite this, the trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment, finding Walton lacked standing under FEHA because she was not a paid employee.
What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?
Walton's lawsuit alleged that the District's nursing faculty supervisor subjected her to sexual harassment and retaliation during her clinical rotation. According to the complaint and the Court of Appeal's decision:
Garcia subjected Walton to repeated verbal and physical sexual harassment during her clinical rotation and attempted to force her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades
When Walton rejected his advances, Garcia gave her a failing grade and refused to meet with her to discuss it
The District placed Garcia on administrative leave after Walton reported the conduct, and an independent investigation confirmed the inappropriate behavior
Garcia did not return to his position, but the damage to Walton's nursing education had already been done — she withdrew from the program and was forced to complete her nursing degree elsewhere
The trial court ruled Walton had no standing under FEHA because she was not an employee; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding she could qualify as an "unpaid intern" entitled to FEHA protections
What Was the Main Question in the Case?
The central legal question was whether a postsecondary student completing required clinical rotations as part of her academic nursing program qualifies as an "unpaid intern" under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, giving her standing to pursue harassment and retaliation claims. The trial court said no. The Court of Appeal said yes — holding that the Legislature's 2015 amendment extending FEHA protections to unpaid interns applies to nursing students in clinical roles, even when those rotations are a required part of their degree program.
Separately, the court also addressed a procedural issue that threatened to derail Walton's case. Her attorney's declaration — a key piece of evidence supporting her opposition to the District's summary judgment motion — was excluded by the trial court because it failed to state the location where it was signed and was not subscribed under penalty of perjury under the laws of California. The Court of Appeal held that this should have been excused as a correctable oversight rather than used to exclude critical evidence from the record.
Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?
While this case arose in a community college nursing program, its implications extend far beyond higher education. California workers and trainees in a wide range of settings can benefit from this ruling.
California workers in internships, externships, clinical rotations, apprenticeships, and other training programs should know that FEHA's anti-harassment and anti-retaliation protections may apply to them, even if they are not receiving a paycheck
Organizations that use unpaid interns, students, or clinical trainees should not assume that FEHA's harassment protections only cover traditional employees — this ruling signals those assumptions are legally dangerous
The decision is especially significant for California's large healthcare training sector, where students regularly work alongside licensed professionals in supervised clinical settings
It reinforces that supervisors who harass students or trainees under their authority can expose their institutions to significant legal liability under California law
A Brief Overview of the Case
2017: Jessie Walton enrolls in Victor Valley Community College District's nursing program and begins required clinical rotations supervised by Diego Garcia
Spring 2018: Garcia allegedly subjects Walton to repeated sexual harassment and retaliates against her with a failing grade after she rejects his advances
After Walton reports the conduct: The District places Garcia on administrative leave; an independent investigation confirms "highly inappropriate behavior"; Garcia does not return
Walton withdraws from the program and completes her nursing degree out of state
Through counsel: Walton notifies the District of her intent to pursue FEHA and related claims
Trial court: San Bernardino County Superior Court grants the District's motion for summary judgment, finding Walton lacks FEHA standing as a non-employee
March 18, 2026: The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reverses summary judgment, holding Walton may qualify as an "unpaid intern" under FEHA; case remanded with instructions to deny summary adjudication on her FEHA, Education Code, and negligence claims
April 14, 2026: Opinion modified and certified for publication
FAQs: Walton v. Victor Valley CCD
Q: What is FEHA, and who does it protect?
A: The Fair Employment and Housing Act is California's primary anti-discrimination and anti-harassment law. It prohibits harassment and discrimination based on protected characteristics including sex, gender, and sexual orientation. In 2015, the Legislature amended FEHA to expressly extend its protections against harassment to unpaid interns.
Q: Who qualifies as an "unpaid intern" under FEHA?
A: California's definition covers a person who performs work for a public or private employer for the purpose of gaining vocational experience, and who is not entitled to wages for that work. The Walton decision confirms this definition can apply to postsecondary students completing required clinical rotations as part of their degree program.
Q: Can a student who is harassed during a clinical rotation or internship file a FEHA claim?
A: Based on the Walton ruling, yes — if the student's role meets the definition of an unpaid intern under FEHA, they can pursue harassment and retaliation claims under the Act, even if they are not a paid employee of the organization where they are placed.
Q: What should a student or intern do if they experience sexual harassment during a clinical rotation or internship?
A: Document every incident as specifically as possible, including dates, what was said or done, and any witnesses. Report the conduct through your school's or institution's complaint channels. An employment attorney can evaluate your legal options and help you understand any filing deadlines that apply to FEHA claims.
Q: Does this ruling apply only to nursing students?
A: No. The court's reasoning applies broadly to any postsecondary student completing required clinical, vocational, or externship placements as part of their academic program — including students in medical, dental, legal, social work, and other professional training programs.
Q: What is a motion for summary judgment, and why did the Court of Appeal reverse it here?
A: A motion for summary judgment asks the court to dismiss a case before trial on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot win as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal reversed because it found Walton presented enough evidence to raise triable issues — meaning a jury, not a judge, should decide what happened and whether it violated California law.
Did You Experience Harassment During an Internship or Clinical Rotation?
Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District makes clear that California law protects more than just traditional employees — interns, trainees, and clinical students may have the same right to a harassment-free workplace. If you experienced harassment or retaliation during an internship, externship, or training program in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
