Kerin Morataya, a disabled former law student, sued volunteer law professor Marco Fortades under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act after he allegedly revoked an accommodation allowing her to keep her camera off during remote classes and examinations.
Morataya attended Peoples College of Law, an unaccredited nonprofit law school in Los Angeles staffed largely by volunteer faculty. According to the complaint, Morataya disclosed during the admissions process that she suffered from bipolar and anxiety disorders and required an accommodation permitting her to attend videoconference classes and examinations with her camera turned off because appearing on camera could trigger severe panic attacks. The School instructed her to seek accommodations directly from her professors, and Morataya’s torts professor Fortades initially approved the request.
The relationship between Morataya and Fortades allegedly deteriorated during the school year. Fortades reportedly complained to another professor that Morataya was making the class “miserable” through “rude and disrespectful comments.” After receiving a D+ in her second quarter of torts, Morataya was placed on academic probation.
The day before the third-quarter torts final examination, Fortades emailed students announcing that cameras would be required during the exam and that grades would be reduced by 20 percent for noncompliance. This effectively revoked Morataya’s previously approved accommodation. Although the School’s admissions chair attempted to intervene and instructed Fortades to permit Morataya to keep her camera off, Fortades allegedly refused. Morataya ultimately completed the exam with her camera off, after which Fortades declined to submit a grade for her, resulting in a zero on her transcript and academic disqualification.
Morataya sued both the law school and Fortades under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by “business establishments” in California. Before trial, Morataya settled with the School, leaving only her claim against Fortades individually.
On the day trial was scheduled to begin, the trial court raised on its own the question of whether Fortades, as an unpaid volunteer professor, could be liable under the Unruh Act. The trial court ordered expedited briefing, giving each side one day to submit five-page briefs on the issue. After receiving the briefs, the trial court dismissed the case before trial began, concluding that Fortades was not a “business establishment” subject to the statute because he was merely a volunteer.
The California Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court explained that the trial court had analyzed the wrong legal question. The relevant issue was not whether Fortades himself was a “business establishment,” but whether discrimination allegedly occurred within a business establishment (i.e., the law school) and whether Fortades could nonetheless be individually liable for discriminatory conduct committed while acting on behalf of that institution.
The Court noted that California authority recognizes that employees and agents of business establishments may, in some circumstances, face individual liability under the Unruh Act for discriminatory conduct. Although the Court declined to decide whether that principle extends to unpaid volunteers, it concluded that the issue required factual development regarding Fortades’s role, authority, duties, and relationship to the School.
The Court also criticized the procedure used by the trial court. It held that Morataya was not provided meaningful notice or a fair opportunity to respond before the court effectively terminated her case on the first day of trial. The appellate court emphasized that dispositive rulings require procedures that allow parties adequate notice, evidentiary development, and an opportunity to be heard.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Morataya v. Fortades (May 11, 2026) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2026 WL 1284011].
Note: The decision suggests that individuals acting on behalf of a private organization may, in some circumstances, face potential liability for discriminatory conduct even where they are unpaid volunteers. The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of consistently implementing approved accommodations and maintaining clear processes for handling disability-related requests. LCW will continue monitoring this case for further developments.