California Court Confirms Unpaid Interns Have Standing to Pursue Claims Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Even When Doing So as Part of a School Program

In Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District, Case No. G064887 (Mar. 18, 2026, modified Apr. 14, 2026), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held, in part, that an unpaid intern has standing to assert claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”) even when part of a school program.

In that case, the plaintiff, Jessie Walton (“Walton”), was a post-secondary nursing student with the Victor Valley Community College District. As part of her coursework, she was required to complete clinical rotations at two local hospitals, where she was supervised by District faculty as she worked with patients.

Walton alleged that one of the District faculty responsible for supervising her work, Diego Garcia (“Garcia”), subjected her to verbal and physical sexual harassment and tried to force her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades. She further alleged that, when she refused Garcia’s advances, he retaliated against her by giving her a non-passing grade and refusing to meet with her to discuss her grade. Walton subsequently submitted a complaint to the District, alleging harassment and discrimination, and later withdrew from the District’s nursing program.

The external investigator retained by the District to investigate Walton’s allegations found that Garcia had engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior” by sexually harassing Walton and another female student. After the District’s human resources department recommended that Garcia be removed from his position, Garcia did not return to teach for the District.

Walton subsequently initiated litigation against the District and alleged, among other things, claims of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the FEHA. The District moved for summary judgment and asserted, among other things, that Walton lacked standing to pursue a claim under the FEHA because she was an unpaid intern working at a hospital through her nursing program. The trial court granted the motion and held, in part, that Walton lacked standing to pursue FEHA claims. The appellate court reversed this ruling.

In doing so, the appellate court first noted that the Legislature amended the FEHA in 2015 and specifically extended its protections against sexual harassment and discrimination to “unpaid interns.” Thus, if Walton was an unpaid intern, her relationship with the District was subject to the FEHA’s protections.

Next, the appellate court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that Walton was not an unpaid intern under the FEHA because she was a student whose clinical rotations were required as part of her nursing program. The appellate court noted that “student” and “unpaid intern” are not mutually exclusive terms. Rather, “the Legislature understands that many unpaid interns are also students.” It went on to cite to the legislative history of the amendment and explained that, when expanding the FEHA to protect unpaid interns, the Legislature specifically recognized that internships are often “part of a more formalized educational or vocational program” and “several professional graduate programs require or at least typically include some type of internship placement before completion, including . . . nursing.” (emphasis in original) It further noted that the definition of an unpaid intern under the FEHA is “any individual (often a student or trainee) who works without pay for an employer or other covered entity, in any unpaid internship or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience.”

The appellate court then went on to address the District’s argument that it could not be liable for alleged FEHA violations because Walton volunteered at hospitals and not directly for the District. The court noted, however, that District staff, not hospital staff, was responsible for supervising Walton’s work at the hospitals and controlled the details of that work. Accordingly, “[t]o the extent the District ran her internship . . . the District is subject to [the] FEHA’s provisions prohibiting the discrimination or harassment of unpaid interns.”

Based on these findings, the appellate court concluded, it was “inappropriate” for the trial court to grant the District’s summary judgment motion on the FEHA claims for lack of standing. The appellate court therefore reversed the judgment on those claims and remanded the matter to the trial court to proceed with litigation of the FEHA claims.

This decision is a good reminder for organizations to analyze all aspects of their workforce, including unpaid interns and individuals working offsite, to ensure their policies and practices comply with applicable laws, including the FEHA.

This legal update and any use of its information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing contained on this website should be considered legal advice for any specific employer or employment situation. Consult legal counsel before taking any action as a result of information contained herein.