The Rule of Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District is that postsecondary nursing students performing required clinical rotations qualify as "unpaid interns" under FEHA regardless of their student status, and are entitled to protection from sexual harassment and discrimination, under circumstances where District faculty supervise the clinical work and control the details of the internship.
Appeal from judgment after granting summary judgment in Superior Court, San Bernardino County.
Defendant Appellant was Victor Valley Community College District — the community college district that employed the nursing program director who allegedly sexually harassed the student.
Plaintiff Respondent was Jessie Walton — the postsecondary nursing student who alleged sexual harassment during required clinical rotations.
The suit sounded in sexual harassment and discrimination. The operative complaint included five FEHA claims (sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and injunctive relief), Civil Code violations, Education Code violations, and negligence.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that Walton, a nursing student, was allegedly subjected to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment by District nursing program director Diego Garcia during spring 2018 clinical rotations at hospitals where District faculty supervised students. Garcia allegedly tried to force her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades, and when rebuffed, retaliated by giving her a non-passing grade. Walton complained to the District in June 2018, prompting an investigation that ultimately found Garcia had engaged in "highly inappropriate behavior" and sexual harassment.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted summary judgment for the District, ruling that (1) Walton's attorney's declaration was defective for lacking proper penalty of perjury subscription, (2) Walton lacked standing under FEHA as she was not an unpaid intern, (3) she failed to comply with Government Claims Act notice requirements, and (4) the District was not deliberately indifferent under Education Code section 66270.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding counsel's declaration for a curable omission 2. Whether a postsecondary nursing student performing clinical rotations has standing under FEHA as an "unpaid intern" 3. Whether counsel's 13-page letter detailing alleged misconduct satisfied Government Claims Act notice requirements 4. Whether triable issues exist regarding deliberate indifference under Education Code section 66270
The Appellate Court held that postsecondary nursing students performing required clinical rotations qualify as "unpaid interns" under FEHA and have standing to pursue harassment claims, where District faculty supervised the clinical work. The court also held that technical omissions in attorney declarations should be curable before granting summary judgment, that a detailed letter outlining misconduct can satisfy Government Claims Act notice requirements, and that conducting an investigation alone does not establish lack of deliberate indifference when the investigation provided no benefit to the complainant.
The case is inapplicable when students are not performing supervised clinical rotations or internships, when hospital staff rather than District staff control the supervision and details of clinical work, when the alleged harassment is purely verbal/psychological without physical touching (for negligence claims), or when the educational institution promptly remedies the harassment situation before the student is harmed.
The case leaves open the precise boundaries of what constitutes an "unpaid intern" versus a "student" in other educational contexts, the exact standard for "deliberate indifference" when institutions conduct investigations but fail to provide interim relief to complainants, and how Thomas v. Regents applies to different types of alleged harassment in educational settings.
Counsel
For Appellant: McNicholas & McNicholas, Matthew S. McNicholas and Douglas D. Winter; Law Offices of John W. Dalton and John W. Dalton; and Esner, Chang, Boyer & Murphy and Stuart B. Esner
For Respondent: Walsh & Associates and Dennis J. Walsh; Pollak, Vida & Barer and Daniel P. Barer