Cal. Codes » Education Code / TITLE 1. GENERAL EDUCATION CODE PROVISIONS / DIVISION 1. GENERAL EDUCATION CODE PROVISIONS / PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS / CHAPTER 2. Educational Equity / ARTICLE 1. Declaration of Purpose
California Codes

Cal. Education Code § 200 (2026)

Declaration of Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, equal rights, and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory acts, including discrimination not just because of one protected trait, but also because of the combination of two or more protected bases.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “While Harper waived reliance on this section as an independent source of authority for his appeal, see maj. op. at 1176 n. 13, we can certainly consider it in deciding how to construe other provisions of California law.”
Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified Sch. Dist., 964 F. Supp. 1369 (N.D. Cal. 1997). · cites it 3× “5, and 52(a); (4) MUSD and Crocker negligently retained, trained, supervised, and disciplined Guzman and other personnel; (5) MUSD, Guzman, and Crocker negligently inflicted emotional distress on plaintiff; and (6) MUSD and Crocker violated California Education Code sections…”
Garcia Ex Rel. Marin v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., 627 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 3× “by failing to ensure that they properly performed their duties required by Penal Code § 11166[and] Education Code § 200 et seq., regarding sexual harassment and CUSD Board Policies regarding prevention of sexual harassment.”
Donovan v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 167 Cal. App. 4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “Through these intentional acts and the acts of deliberate indifference, [plaintiffs] were deprived of the equal rights and opportunities in a public educational institution as guaranteed under the California Education Code Sections 200, 220, 233.”
Gay-Straight All. Network v. Visalia Unified Sch. Dist., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “*1104 In this case, GSA Network seeks declaratory relief claiming that the Defendants’ acts “violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, California Education Code Sections 200 et.”
Massey v. Banning Unified Sch. Dist., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “§ 1983 , California Education Code § 200, et seq. and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.”
C.N. v. Wolf, 410 F. Supp. 2d 894 (C.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ seventh claim for relief is based on an alleged violation of California Education Code §§ 200, 201, 220.”
Hector F. v. El Centro Elementary Sch. Dist., 227 Cal. App. 4th 331 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “” (Ed. Code, § 200.) More particularly in enacting Education Code section 201, the Legislature found both that: “(c) Harassment on school grounds directed at an individual on the basis of personal characteristics or status creates a hostile environment and jeopardizes equal…”
Brennon B. v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “These include the panoply of antidiscrimination statutes set forth in the Education Code and applicable to all schools receiving any form of state funding or assistance (Ed. Code, § 200 et seq.) and the comprehensive antidiscrimination provisions set forth in the Government Code…”
Roe v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist. (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 4× “; (2) Violation of California Education Code § 200, et seq.; (3) 21 Negligent Failure to Perform Mandatory Duties, California Government Code §§ 815.”
Brennon B. v. Super. Ct. (Cal. 2022). · cites it 3× “, Ed. Code, § 200 et seq.; Gov. Code, § 11135; 42 U.”
M.M. v. San Juan Unified Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 28 1983” (“§ 1983”) by the individual Defendants, which Plaintiff identifies as violations of the 1 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX, and Defendants’ failure to 2 train; (3) Violation of California Education Code §§ 200 et seq. by District; (4)…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.