{"id":164,"date":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=164"},"modified":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:00:00","slug":"walton-v-victor-valley-community-college-feha-education-code-sexual-harassment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=164","title":{"rendered":"Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District \u2014 Nursing Student May Pursue FEHA, Education Code, and Government Claims Against District for Faculty Sexual Harassment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
G064668<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Sexual harassment; FEHA; Education Code section 66270; Government Claims Act; community college student; deliberate indifference<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Jessie Walton enrolled as a postsecondary nursing student at Victor Valley Community College District in 2017. As part of her clinical rotations, she worked under the supervision of Diego Garcia, the District’s nursing program director. Walton alleged that Garcia subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment during the spring 2018 rotations and tried to coerce her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades. When Walton rejected him, Garcia allegedly retaliated by giving her a non-passing grade and refusing to discuss it.<\/p>\n

In June 2018, Walton sent a detailed letter to the District describing Garcia’s conduct. The District placed Garcia on administrative leave, hired a third-party investigator, and after a thorough investigation issued a 79-page report concluding Garcia had engaged in highly inappropriate sexually harassing conduct toward Walton and another female student. The District’s HR department recommended Garcia’s removal from his tenured position, and Garcia did not return.<\/p>\n

In December 2018, Walton’s attorney sent a 13-page letter to the District describing Garcia’s alleged conduct, estimating damages, and advising of possible litigation. The letter did not specifically reference the Government Claims Act. After mediation failed, Walton sued the District and Garcia, asserting claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Civil Code, the Education Code (including section 66270 prohibiting discrimination at postsecondary educational institutions), and for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to the District on all claims.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, reversed in large part. The court agreed with Walton on each of the trial court’s substantive rulings.<\/p>\n

First, the trial court erred by excluding Walton’s attorney’s declaration based on a correctible omission. The court should have given Walton an opportunity to cure the defect rather than excluding the evidence outright.<\/p>\n

Second, Walton has standing to pursue FEHA claims even though she was a student rather than an employee, because California’s FEHA framework extends to certain training and educational contexts including the apprentice-style faculty supervision involved in clinical rotations.<\/p>\n

Third, the December 2018 attorney letter substantially complied with the Government Claims Act. While the letter did not invoke the Act by name, it provided the District with the substance of Walton’s claim, an estimate of damages, and notice of intent to sue, satisfying the purpose of the statutory notice requirement. Strict technical compliance is not always required where the public entity has actual notice of the claim and an opportunity to investigate.<\/p>\n

Fourth, on the Education Code section 66270 claim, the District’s argument that it could not be liable because it was not deliberately indifferent failed at the summary judgment stage. The District’s response, while ultimately resulting in Garcia’s removal, took several months. Triable issues of fact exist about whether the District’s response was sufficiently prompt and effective.<\/p>\n

The court affirmed only the trial court’s ruling on the Civil Code violations claim, which Walton did not contest on appeal. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n