Crisis Counsel: Student’s FEHA Claims Revived – What ‘Walton’ Means for Educational Institutions

A nursing student conducting clinical rotations qualifies as an “unpaid intern” entitled to protection under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), according to a decision published earlier this year by the California Court of Appeal.

The opinion in Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District, 119 Cal. App. 5th 1164 (2026), materially expands the universe of individuals who may bring FEHA claims and carries significant practical consequences for any employer or institution that oversees students in structured training programs. 

Student Asserts FEHA Claims Based on Alleged Conduct by Clinical Director

Jessie Walton enrolled in Victor Valley Community College District’s nursing program in 2017. As a required component of her coursework in the spring of 2018, she completed clinical rotations at local hospitals under the supervision of the district’s nursing program director. 

Walton alleged that the director subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment during those rotations, including attempts to coerce her into a sexual relationship in exchange for favorable grades. When she refused his advances, the director allegedly retaliated by issuing a failing grade and refusing to discuss it with her. Walton reported the conduct to the district, and the director was placed on administrative leave. The district investigated the incident, resulting in a 79-page report finding the director engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior” and had sexually harassed Walton and at least one other student. 

Despite the findings, the district refused Walton’s request to change her failing grade. Walton withdrew from the program and filed suit, asserting claims under FEHA for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, failure to prevent, retaliation, and other claims under the education code. 

The trial court granted the district’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Walton: (1) lacked standing to sue under FEHA because of her status as a student, (2) failed to comply with the Government Claims Act notice requirement, and (3) could not establish the district acted with deliberate indifference to her complaints. 

The Court of Appeal reversed on each of those grounds. This analysis focuses on the status question.

Student Has Standing to Sue Under FEHA, Court Holds

The court’s most consequential holding from the case is that the terms “student” and “unpaid intern” are not mutually exclusive under FEHA.  In 2015, FEHA was amended to include “unpaid interns” in the legal protections against sexual harassment and discrimination. The amendments made it unlawful for employers to harass an “unpaid intern” or fail to take corrective action when the employer became aware of such harassment. 

The court here refers to these amendments to find the legislature expressly recognized that “several professional graduate programs require . . . some type of internship placement” and that under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §1108(m), “ ‘unpaid intern’ for purposes of FEHA is ‘any individual (often a student or trainee) who works without pay . . . in any unpaid internship or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience.’ ”). Thus, the court held Walton’s status as a student does not strip her of her statutory protection, and the district was exposed to liability due to its control and supervision over Walton’s rotations at local hospitals as a part of her internship. 

Legal Lesson for Educational Institutions: Expanded Scope of Plaintiffs

Community colleges, universities, vocational schools, and similar institutions must now treat students in structured training programs as unpaid interns for purposes of FEHA. With this holding, the best practice for both host employers and educational institutions offering such programs as required curriculum is likely to revisit anti-harassment policies, training requirements, and reporting mechanisms for employees and clearly extend these programs to cover unpaid interns and student trainees. Supervisors who oversee student interns should receive the same harassment prevention training as those who oversee traditional employees. 

Prior to this decision, students could be denied FEHA protections on their student status alone. The court has now closed this gap. For educational institutions and the employers who host student placements, Walton introduces a significant new pathway of legal exposure, as they now face the prospect of FEHA liability if harassment or discrimination goes unaddressed. In addition, under Walton’s inquiry of “deliberate indifference,” institutions must do more than simply open an investigation. The key is whether the institution provides meaningful relief to the complaining student. 

For students engaged in required clinical, practicum, and similar work, Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District means the line between student and worker, under California employment harassment law, has effectively been erased.