Calvin v. Hallcon
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-08728
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Calvin v. Hallcon, Judge Seeborg dismissed Calvin’s complaint with leave to amend, citing timeliness, exhaustion, and pleading problems.
Yvette Renee Calvin’s employment and discrimination claims against Hallcon Corporation were dismissed, but she was allowed to file an amended complaint by February 28, 2025.
What happened
In Calvin v. Hallcon, Yvette Renee Calvin alleged that Hallcon Corporation terminated her truck-driver job after following Google’s requirement that vendors’ workers be vaccinated against COVID-19 or obtain a medical or religious exemption. Calvin said she would not get the vaccine but did not allege that she requested an exemption.
The court identified several problems with the complaint. Calvin filed it more than three years after the alleged October 31, 2021 termination, and she did not allege facts showing that the deadline should be extended. Her discrimination claim also did not allege that she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or California Civil Rights Department and received permission to sue. Finally, any constitutional claims lacked facts showing that Hallcon was a government actor or could be sued under the federal civil-rights statute she cited.
Judge Richard Seeborg granted Hallcon’s motion to dismiss and gave Calvin permission to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed by February 28, 2025 and comply with federal pleading rules, including paragraph numbering. If Calvin did not file an amended complaint, the action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.
The detailed version
- Calvin v. Hallcon · No. 3:24-cv-08728
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 21, 2025
Background
Yvette Renee Calvin represented herself in this employment-related action against Hallcon Corporation. She alleged that Hallcon terminated her job as a truck driver after complying with a requirement from its client, Google, Inc., that vendors coming onto Google sites either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or receive a medical or religious exemption. Calvin alleged that she told Hallcon she would not get the vaccine under any circumstances, but she did not allege that she requested either type of exemption.
Hallcon moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined that the motion could be decided without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing. The court also explained that although it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally, self-represented parties must still follow the same procedural rules as other litigants.
Reasons for dismissal
The court identified at least three independent problems with the complaint:
1. Statute of limitations. A statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a claim. Calvin expressly alleged that her employment ended on October 31, 2021, but she filed this action on December 4, 2024, more than three years later. The court stated that she could not proceed without alleging facts supporting an extension of the deadline or otherwise showing that her claims were not time-barred.
2. Discrimination claim. The court stated that the discrimination claim failed because Calvin did not allege that she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the California Civil Rights Department and received a right-to-sue letter before filing the complaint.
3. Constitutional claims. To the extent Calvin asserted constitutional claims, the court found that she did not allege facts showing that Hallcon was a state actor—an entity acting on behalf of the government—or that Hallcon could otherwise be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or another statutory cause of action.
Disposition
The court granted Hallcon’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to include numbered paragraphs and otherwise comply with Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court set February 28, 2025 as the deadline for filing an amended complaint. If Calvin filed no amended complaint, the action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.
Uncertainty noted
The opinion states that Hallcon filed its motion on December 30, 2025, although the order is dated January 21, 2025. This appears to be an internal date inconsistency in the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.