(a)All pupils have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment.
(b)California’s public schools have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity.
(c)Harassment on school grounds directed at an individual on the basis of personal characteristics or status
creates a hostile environment and jeopardizes equal educational opportunity as guaranteed by the California Constitution and the United States Constitution.
(d)There is an urgent need to prevent and respond to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents that are occurring at an increasing rate in California’s public schools.
(e)There is an urgent need to teach and inform pupils in the public schools about their rights, as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions, in order to increase pupils’ awareness and understanding of their rights and the rights of others, with the intention of promoting tolerance and sensitivity in public schools and in society as a means of responding to potential harassment and hate violence.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature that each public school undertake educational
activities to counter discriminatory incidents on school grounds and, within constitutional bounds, to minimize and eliminate a hostile environment on school grounds that impairs the access of pupils to equal educational opportunity.
(g)It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall be interpreted as consistent with Article 9.5 (commencing with Section 11135) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, et seq.), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq.), Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(a)), the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.), the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1701, et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Secs. 51 to 53, incl., Civ. C.), and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Pt.
2.8 (commencing with Sec. 12900), Div. 3, Gov. C.), except where this chapter may grant more protections or impose additional obligations, and that the remedies provided herein shall not be the exclusive remedies, but may be combined with remedies that may be provided by the above statutes.
Notes of Decisions
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “” Cal. Educ.Code § 201(a). The dissent expostulates on the meaning of the term "harassment” and speculates as to whether the California statute may be contrary to the First Amendment, all of which is irrelevant here because we do not rely on the statute in reaching our decision.”
Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 1003 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
“See Cal. Educ. Code § 201 (recognizing "an urgent need to prevent and respond to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents that are occurring at an increasing rate in California's public schools"); Cal.”
Brennon B. v. Super. Ct., 57 Cal. App. 5th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Casting beyond the Unruh Act, petitioner maintains a 1998 amendment to Education Code section 201 demonstrates California public school districts are business establishments under the Act.”
Brennon B. v. Super. Ct., 513 P.3d 971 (Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” (Ed. Code, § 201, subd. (g).) Brennon contends that — even if he cannot hold the District liable under the Unruh Civil Rights Act itself — he can seek the Act’s enhanced remedies because subdivision (g) of Education Code section 201 makes those remedies available for…”
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “” Cal. Educ. Code § 201 (a). The dissent expostulates on the meaning of the term “harassment” and speculates as to whether the California statute may be contrary to the First Amendment, all of which is irrelevant here because we do not rely on the statute in reaching our…”
Collins v. Thurmond (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
“…” Education Code section 201, subdivision (g), notes that the law “shall be interpreted as consistent with Article 9.”
Collins v. Thurmond (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
“…” Education Code section 201, subdivision (g), notes that the law “shall be interpreted as consistent with Article 9.”
Collins v. Thurmond (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
“…” Education Code section 201, subdivision (g), notes that the law “shall be interpreted as consistent with Article 9.”
Steshenko v. Foothill-De Anza Cmty. Coll. Dist. CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
“(Ed. Code, § 201, subd. (g).) In a similar vein, we observe that the deliberate indifference standard applies to the Rehabilitation Act, and “[s]ection 11135 ‘is identical to the Rehabilitation Act except that the entity must receive State financial assistance rather than…”
J.K. v. Gold Trail Union Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2021).
“26 5 Plaintiff does attempt to argue that California Education Code § 201, which provides, inter alia, that schools should provide educational activities to counter discrimination, suffices as the statutory 27 mandate required for assertion of his § 1983 claim.”
Cal. Education Code § 201(a): 1 case
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” Cal. Educ.Code § 201(a). The dissent expostulates on the meaning of the term "harassment” and speculates as to whether the California statute may be contrary to the First Amendment, all of which is irrelevant here because we do not rely on the statute in reaching our decision.”
Cal. Education Code § 201(c): 2 cases
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” Cal. Educ.Code § 201(a). The dissent expostulates on the meaning of the term "harassment” and speculates as to whether the California statute may be contrary to the First Amendment, all of which is irrelevant here because we do not rely on the statute in reaching our decision.”
Cal. Education Code § 201(f): 2 cases
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006).
“” Cal. Educ.Code § 201(a). The dissent expostulates on the meaning of the term "harassment” and speculates as to whether the California statute may be contrary to the First Amendment, all of which is irrelevant here because we do not rely on the statute in reaching our decision.”
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.