Parkinson v. The Regents of the U. of Cal. CA1/5
Filed 6/3/25 Parkinson v. The Regents of the U. of Cal. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
ISABELLA PARKINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A169481 v. THE REGENTS OF THE (Alameda County UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Super. Ct. No. 23CV035944) Defendant and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Isabella Parkinson sued The Regents of the University of California (The Regents) for wrongful termination. The Regents demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Parkinson did not amend her complaint, and the trial court entered a judgment dismissing the case. On appeal, Parkinson asks that we reverse and direct the trial court to grant her leave to amend the complaint to assert causes of action alleging a violation of due process, a violation of her right to free speech under title 42 United States Code section 1983, and declaratory relief. We affirm.
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1.
1
Parkinson’s complaint alleges she began employment at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), in 2006. In July 2022, Parkinson accepted a new, full-time, remote position with the University of California Office of the President (UCOP). On August 1, 2022, she began working remotely for another employer, outside the University of California system. On August 14, 2022, before she began work at UCOP, Parkinson informed her new supervisor at UCOP about her outside employment and her new supervisor did not raise any questions or concerns. On August 10, 2022, Parkinson resigned from her full-time position at UCSD. The next day, Parkinson’s UCSD supervisor offered Parkinson a “50% appointment” whereby she would work 30 percent for UCSD Health and 20 percent for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UCSD. On August 23, 2022, Parkinson’s UCSD supervisor rescinded Parkinson’s resignation and “replaced it with the 50% appointment . . . .” On August 26, 2022, UCSD’s human resources department informed Parkinson that she must resign from UCSD again because her supervisor did not complete the paperwork for the new 50-percent position. UCSD also told Parkinson that she was not permitted to begin work for UCOP until she resigned from UCSD. On August 26, 2022, Parkinson resigned from UCSD a second time. On August 29, 2022, she began working at UCOP. On September 2, 2022, Parkinson’s supervisor at UCOP told her “she had an issue with Parkinson’s additional work outside the UC System.” (Some capitalization omitted.) On September 12, 2022, Parkinson’s supervisor sent her a notice of intent to terminate. During the pretermination Skelly process,2 Parkinson said she would not have taken the outside position if she had initially been told that her UCOP supervisor was
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)