Dawn Murray v. Oceanside Unified School District

Understanding the legal case in Murray V Oceanside Unified School District
Name
Institutional Affiliations:

Introduction and a Brief Historical Background
The determination of the legal case requires an accurate understanding of the plaintiff’s positions and claims, as well as the position of the defendant. The ultimate value of the case is that justice should prevail for both parties in every case. The determination of a case, like in the employment case also requires an understanding of the legal statutes that helps supporting the case. In a place where the legal status exists, the presiding judge attempts to analyze similar cases and their determination based on the legal structures. It is only after a complete understanding of the case variables that a port judgment can be made. In the trial courts, the plaintiff or the defendant may not be fully satisfied with the outcome of the case and, thus, can seek jurisdiction in the higher courts to help in getting a different perception of the same. As long as the nature of the case is still under the confines of the court’s jurisdiction, the appeals judgment looks into the nature of the case, the claims, and the defenses then evaluate the outcome of the lower case and make a judgment on the direction of the case. If sufficient ground is identified to determine the case, the appeal judge may give his verdict on the case. However, the appeals judge, on the interpretation of the law may also feel that the trial courts made errors, and thus can reverse be the case to the lower court, and direct continuation, citing the legal clauses that need correction.

The case is then redetermined by the trial court, with a favorable possible outcome for both parties. This was the sample case of the Murray V Oceanside Unified School District that appeals court reversed to the trails courts that flouted the employment acts and made the judgment that was not qualified in the views of the Appeals judge.
Facts about the Issue
Murray V Oceanside Unified School District, D031662 4045 (2000). A woman identified as Dawn Murray (Plaintiff), and who was a long term employee of the Oceanside Unified School District was denied justice by the Trial Court of San Diego. The plaintiff persistently complained the laxity by the employer, Oceanside Unified School District (defendant) to take action on her mistreatments emanating from her sexual orientation. The ruling cited violated the accurate interpretation of the Lab. Code, § 1101 et seq. (workplace political freedom law) that was further updated to Lab. Code, § 1102.1 (employment discrimination based on sexual orientation). The court entered a ruling for the defendant with due disregard to the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requirements that aims to pacify the provisions of the sexual orientations of the plaintiff on August 9, 2000 (S088723) CITATION Lam02 l 1033 (Lambda Legal, 2002). This necessitated the direct appeal to the Court Of Appeal Of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, that have a jurisdiction in the case to hear and determine the fair rule of justice in the case for both the defendant and the plaintiff. The case included various accounts of negligence in the defendant to take action on three accounts of sexual harassments that the plaintiff presented before the court, the initial one dating back to November 13, 1994, all of which were rejected on the basis that then the plaintiff could not provide sufficient evidence adjudicating harsh work environment. In the case, one claim of the defendant refusing to promote the plaintiff in 1993 though she was the best candidate in the interview after the leading candidate withdrew, was rejected based on staleness. The plaintiff thus feels that her justice was denied based on her sexual orientation.
Statement of the Legal Issue
Under this Lab. Code, § 1102.1, the employment discrimination based on sexual orientation law, does the appeals court have a jurisdiction to hearing and the determination of the case based on the amendments to include the sexual harassments, if the employer showed satisfactory levels of negligence to take action on the sexual harassments and psychological torture sustained by the appellant, and refusal to promote an employee based on the sexual orientation?
Ruling on the Case
The appeal judge reversed the case to the trials court to redetermine and reexamine the labor and employment acts that included the sexual harassment based on the sexual orientation amendments in the determination of the case, thus giving the plaintiff the opportunity to amend her claims and include the earlier rejected claims of sexual harassments, failure to provide a conducive work environment and failure to promote employees by the Oceanside Unified School District CITATION Lam02 l 1033 (Lambda Legal, 2002).
Analysis of the Resulting Opinions
The ruling was holding because the woman had a right to fair hearing in the trials court, and the law also gives the appeals court the jurisdiction to reverse the case based on the level of legal interpretation the case got in the lower levels. According to the provisions of the Lab. Code, former § 1102.1 employment discrimination based on sexual orientation that was later amended by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) to add Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h), sexual harassment at the pace of work that was initially not included in the legal structures was duly and clearly included in the labor and employment acts. This means that the employers have the jurisdiction to protect the employees from encountering any form of sexual harassment. The employers are further protected anoints any harm that may result from such harassment, including the possibility of the employers’ negligence to protect the employees against sexual harassment at the place of work.
The case indicates that Dawn Murray has worked at the Oceanside Unified School District for many years and was a renewed successful and commendable worker. Her work accolades were realizable in many spheres, and she was able to even receive awards for her Stellar work performance. However, her indication that she was a lesbian was the put of friction with the school’s management. She was then publicly ridiculed, sexually harassed and was forced into psychological stress when the other staff members and other school stakeholders were made aware of her sexual orientation (lesbian) that would be let to remain private by the school. Moreover, the school could not promote her to the role of student activities director because of her sexual orientations.
The hold ruling that the trial court listens to the case again and allow the case to continues while determining the consequences of the of the employers was in concurrence with the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 that held that if the employee could prove that there is a position seeking recruitment, and that the claimant applied, and that the job was not given, and that the employer is still seeking for the same position, then the employers must explain the conditions were the plaintiff cannot be employed. All these conditions were satisfied by Murray and thus the appeals court ruling that the matter was time barred had to be reviewed. The reversal of the sexual harassments acts also concurs to the Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971) that runs no gender-based sexual harassments at the place of work CITATION HGL16 l 1033 (HG Legal Resources, 2016).
Conclusion
The reversal of the case to the trails court was in line with the judicial systems in California, the reversed case must, therefore, get a fair hearing that will not dismiss the sexual harassments class, the negligence to protect the workmen’s under the law of tort and the refusal of the employer to promote the plaintiff based on the sexual orientation.

References
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 HG Legal Resources. (2016). Sexual Harassment Law. Retrieved from HG Legal Resources: https://www.hg.org/sexual-harassment-law.html
Lambda Legal. (2002, May 23). California Teacher Settles Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suit with School District. Retrieved from Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ca_20020523_ca-teacher-settles-discrimination-suit