Cal. Codes » Education Code
California Codes

Cal. Education Code § 220 (2026)

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

No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of 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, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Wormuth v. Lammersville Union Sch. Dist., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (E.D. Cal. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wormuth v. Lammersville Union Sch. Dist., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (E.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 3× “disability discrimination claim against the District, under Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation *1117 Act (claim 3); a negligence claim against the District, Superintendent Kirk Nicholas, Assistant Superintendent Khushwinder Gill, and Principal Yeager (claim four); an…”
Donovan v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 167 Cal. App. 4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Education Code Section 220—Nature of Action: “Plaintiffs Megan Donovan and Joseph Ramelli claim that Poway Unified School District discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation in violation of Education Code section 220.”
Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist., 827 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (E.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “California Education Code Section 220 Walsh asserts a claim for damages against the School District pursuant to *1124 California Education Code section 220.”
J.E.L. ex rel. Leon v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (N.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 794 ), California Education Code Section 220, California Civil Code Sections 51 and 54, and California' Government Code Section 11135.”
Videckis v. Pepperdine Univ., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (C.D. Cal. 2015). “Plaintiffs’ TAC alleges seven causes of action: (1) violation of the right of privacy under the California Constitution; (2) violation of California Educational Code §§ 220, 66251, and 66270; (3) violation of Title IX — deliberate indifference; (4) violation of Title IX —…”
Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified Sch. Dist., 964 F. Supp. 1369 (N.D. Cal. 1997). “Cal.Educ.Code § 220 (West 1994). Section 230 defines sex discrimination to include, inter alia, harassment or other discrimination among persons, including students, on the basis of sex.”
Garcia Ex Rel. Marin v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., 627 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “However, the Court has found no California state court cases that have dealt with, interpreted, or construed § 51.”
Videckis v. Pepperdine Univ., 100 F. Supp. 3d 927 (C.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 3× “) Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges three causes of action: (1) violation of the right of privacy under the California constitution; (2) violation of California Educational Code §§ 220, 66251, and 66270; and (3) violation of Title IX.”
Karasek v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 226 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “§ 1681 , SAC ¶¶ 77-79; 8 (2) negligent failure to warn, train, and/or educate plaintiffs, SAC ¶¶ 80-82; (3) gender discrimination in violation of California Education Code section 220, SAC ¶¶ 83-85; and (4) fraud, SAC ¶¶ 86-92.”
W. v. Santa Rosa City Schs. (N.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 5× “¶¶ 70-75]; (4) violation of California Education Code § 220, against all 24 Defendants [id.”
A.S. (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 5× “) (“ADA”) against VUSD; (3) violation of § 504 of the 25 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”) against Point Quest; (4) violation of § 504 of 26 the Rehabilitation Act against VUSD; (5) negligence against Point Quest and Smith; (6) negligent 27 28 1 hiring,…”
E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy (C.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 4× “concurs with Defendants to the 21 extent that the “Court applies the same analysis and standard to [her] Cal. Educ. Code § 220 claim as 22 it does to [her] Title IX claim,” however, contrary to Defendants, E.”
Show all 50 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.