Affiliate: Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Locations: 4. Covered here: 4.
Sacramento and Fresno are also in the Mar Monte affiliate, with substantial problems.
Patients who feel a need to file a complaint:
How to File a Complaint with the California Medical Board
For pdf reports on the state that can be posted online, sent by email attachment, or printed in whole or with specific pages:
California State Report Online PDF
California – Mar Monte Affiliate – Fresno, Sacramento, San Diego – Report Online PDF
Mar Monte (entire affiliate)
Winchester
Article from Monterey County Weekly:
A former employee sues Planned Parenthood, alleging retaliation for speaking up about harassment
by Mary Duan, Oct 31, 2019
Excerpt:
The woman once responsible for cultivating donors and bringing in major cash contributions to the largest Planned Parenthood affiliate in the country has sued her former employer, alleging the organization mishandled a sexual harassment and assault claim brought by another employee, then fired her when she repeatedly expressed her concerns about it.
Elizabeth Winchester says she was fired in late 2018 from the job she held at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte after she twice complained to her supervisor and CEO Stacy Cross about how they were handling the harassment and assault complaint. In her suit, filed Oct. 10 in Monterey County Superior Court, Winchester says Planned Parenthood issued her a “final written warning for alleged professional misconduct” after her second complaint, which she made on Oct. 24, 2018, and that her subsequent firing was in retaliation.
Mendoza
Court Document:
CA Mar Monte Mendoza 2018 Class Action Complaint
Excerpt:
2. This Complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against employees of Defendants.
3. . . . Defendants . . . have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to pay proper minimum, regular and overtime wages, failing to provide rest breaks, failing to provide accurate itemized age statements, and failing to timely pa wages to terminated employees.
Noye
Court Document:
CA Mar Monte Noye 2019 Complaint
Excerpt:
7. Plaintiff, . . . an African-American female, over age 45, was hired by Defendant . . . in 2008. Plaintiff was a dedicated, hardworking employee that provided over 10 years of service . . .
8. In or about June 2018, Plaintiff began to raise complaints about unethical hiring practices, ageism and discrimination that was taking place . . . Once the complaints were lodged, Plaintiff’s work environment became hostile.
9. The hostile work environment included but was not limited to the forgoing: Plaintiff’s supervisors began to disproportionately micro-manage her work; Plaintiff was singled out for criticism by her supervisors; Plaintiff was disparately monitored by her supervisors; and Plaintiff’s ability to perform her day to day work functions was substantially hindered.
10. On or about September 25, 2018, Plaintiff again reported her concerns about unethical hiring practices, ageism and discrimination, as well as her concerns that she believed that she was being retaliated against at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. for Whistleblowing.
- The very next day after Plaintiff raised her legitimate complaints, she was terminated.
Winchester
Article from Monterey County Weekly:
A former employee sues Planned Parenthood, alleging retaliation for speaking up about harassment
by Mary Duan, Oct 31, 2019
Excerpt:
Winchester also alleges Planned Parenthood Mar Monte violated state labor codes, requiring her to work extra hours without paying her overtime and failing to provide her both required rest breaks and required meal breaks. The suit also claims that upon her firing, Planned Parenthood failed to pay her all past due wages.
San Jose (entire city)
Balli
Court Document:
CA San Jose Balli 2022 Complaint
Excerpt:
22. Defendants hired Plaintiff as VoIP Architect on October 7, 2019. Plaintiff was hired with more than 20 years of relevant work experience. Plaintiff’s work responsibilities included . . . general information technology responsibilities, ensuring data security . . .
32. On or about November 15, 2019, Plaintiff learned that Defendants had experienced a serious data breach which had exposed confidential and private Personal Health Information (“PHI”) protected by . . . (HIPPA). Plaintiff immediately reported the breach to [J.L.] Plaintiff reported that the PHI of hundreds of individuals had been unlawfully disclosed . . . [and] that the breach needed to be addressed as soon as possible . . . [and] that Defendants were required to inform the Company’s Ethics and Compliance Department and the State of California about the PHI data breach.
33. [J.L.] stated that she could not take any steps to address or remedy the PHI data breach because doing so would risk PPMM’s accreditation status with parent entity Planned Parenthood Federation of American. Plaintiff nonetheless continued to insisted that the PHI data breach be reported to the proper authorities and remedied according to applicable regulations.
34. [J.L.] became agitated and ordered Plaintiff not to discuss the PHI data breach with any other individual. She threatened Plaintiff and told him that if he disobeyed her instruction his employment with Defendants would be terminated.
35. Plaintiff believed that Defendants PHI data breach needed to be further reported and remedied. Initially, however, he complied with [J.L]’s orders because he relied upon the income from his employment with Defendants to support himself and his family.
36. On or about January 28, 2020, Plaintiff reported the November 2019 PHI data breach to the Company’s Interim General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer . . .
38. Plaintiff further reported to [her] that Defendants were poised to expose additional HIPAA-protected PHI due to the compromised nature of Defendant’s network infrastructure.
39. [She] told Plaintiff that the Company had made multiple mistakes . . . [and] thanked Plaintiff for reporting the data breach and assured him that there would be no retaliation for his actions.
40. The very next day, January 29, 2020, Defendants revoked Plaintiff’s information technology (IT) account rights so that he could not perform his job duties. Defendants’ Human Resources department informed Plaintiff that he was being suspended form work effective immediately. Plaintiff surrendered his work laptop, keys, and security badge.
Indeed.com Planned Parenthood Employee Reviews for San Jose, CA
CA San Jose Indeed 1
CA San Jose Indeed 2
CA San Jose Indeed 3
CA San Jose Indeed 4
CA San Jose Indeed 5
CA Mar Monte Affiliate Glassdoor 1
San Jose
Blossom Hill
CA San Jose Blossom Hill Google 1. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Blossom Hill Google 2. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Blossom Hill Yelp 1
CA San Jose Blossom Hill Yelp 2
CA San Jose Blossom Hill Yelp 3
CA San Jose Blossom Hill Yelp 4
San Jose
Central (on the Alameda)
Doctor’s License Revoked – Joplin
Dr. Joplin served at Planned Parenthood, primarily at the San Jose Center, for many years and was working there at the time of his license revocation in 2011.
Document:
Excerpt:
8. . . .it was alleged that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct in that he consumed alcohol to excess and to an extent he endangered himself and others, and that he had been criminally convicted on two separate occasions of offenses related to the use and consumption of alcohol. . . . Respondent’s license was revoked, stayed, with seven years probation. The terms and conditions of probation . . . required him to abstain completely from the use of products or beverages containing alcohol, submit to biological fluid testing, undergo a psychiatric evaluation, participate in psychotherapy, have a practice monitor, and not engage in the sole practice of medicine . . .
9.A. . . . Respondent failed to comply with this term of his probation in that multiple bodily fluid tests resulted in a positive test result for the presence of alcohol.
Document:
Excerpt:
First Cause for Disciplinary Action
E. Y.G. had a normal prenatal course until on or about March 28, 1990 . . .
11.G. Despite elevated blood pressure, proteinuria and other findings on examination, respondent did not consider and/or did not chart the possiblity of preeclampsia, did not consider and/or did not chart the potential for early induction of labor inY.G. and did not conduct appropriate patient surveillance. . .
11.I. Four days later, on April 9, 2990, Y.G. presented to the Emergency Room at South Valley Hospital with complaints of severe acute low back pain. . . . Y.G. was diagnosed with toxemia. Emergent medical measures were taken. After delivering a viable male infant, Y.G. died on April 10, 1990.
12. . . . he is guilty of gross negligence and/or incompetence in the practice of his profession . . . .
Second Cause for Disciplinary Action
13.B. On July 17, 1993, patient M.M. presented to respondent for examination at the Planned Parenthood Clnic in Seaside, California . . . Respondent recorded in the chart that the patient was 9 and ½ weeks pregnant. Respondent preformed a pelvic examnation at that time and recorded that the uterus was soft and felt approximately 11-12 weeks size . . .
13.C. On July 17, 1993, respondent undertook to perform an abortion . . .
13.D. Respondent ordered M.M. transferred to Natividad Medical Center, Where ultrasound demonstrated the fetus to be 27 weeks. Labor was induced and the female stillborn was taken for evaluation by the County Coroner.
13.E. At all relevant times, respondent knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that M.M.’s fetus was 27 weeks and viable.
14. . . . he is guilty of gross negligence and/or incompetence . . .
Documents:
Highlights:
A patient was given and took home a bag with the name and information of another patient on it.
A patient received mail with another patient’s information on it, including her name, date of birth, and address.
================
From the California Department of Public Health website:
CA San Jose Central complaints 2025
================
Document:
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights
Health Information Privacy Complaint:
CA San Jose Central HHS-OCR 2016
Screenshot
Complaint filed October 17, 2016
CA San Jose Central Google 1. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Google 2. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Google 3. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Google 4. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Google 5. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Google 6. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Google 7. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Central Yelp 1
CA San Jose Central Yelp 2
CA San Jose Central Yelp 3
San Jose
East Side
CA San Jose East Side Google 1. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose East Side Google 2. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose East Side Google 3. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose East Side Google 4. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose East Side Google 4. Accessed 03.11.22.
CA San Jose East Side Yelp 1
CA San Jose East Side Yelp 2
CA San Jose East Side Yelp 3
CA San Jose East Side Yelp 4
CA San Jose East Side Yelp 5
CA San Jose East Side Yelp 6
San Jose
Mar Monte
CA San Jose Mar Monte Google 1. Accessed 06.07.21.
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 1
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 2
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 3
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 4
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 5
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 6
CA San Jose Mar Monte Yelp 7
