Grievance complaint, reporting violation of one or more state and federal laws protecting employees against harassment, intimidation, retaliation, over-monitoring, increased surveillance, threat and false reporting.

1. 1
December 21, 2014
RE: [Redacted] Grievance Complaint; Harassment; Retaliation; Over-Monitoring; Increased
Surveillance
Dear Mr. George Conklin, Interim CMO
Given that my immediate supervisor is on leave, I write to you to submit a grievance on Teri Crisp, the
Center Manager for the West Modesto (6th St. Clinic) site of Golden Valley Health Centers (GVHC). Ms.
Crisp (and those that directed her) may have violated one or more state and federal laws protecting
employees against harassment, intimidation, retaliation, over-monitoring, increased surveillance, threat
and false reporting.
On December 19, 2014, I and number of other providers, staff and patients, including union members
who are employees of GVHC and other healthcare providers, participated in a rally to “Save Golden
Valley.” We started our rally at the Modesto courthouse. At around 11 AM, we moved our rally to the
West Modesto GVHC site. Our rally at the West Modesto was peaceful and lawful. We rallied for,
among others, the following issues: patient rights, quality care, discrimination, racism, sexism, fraud,
and violations of state and federal laws.
Shortly after our arrival, we noticed that the West Modesto security guard was taking pictures of us and
as we approached her, we saw that Ms. Crisp was giving the security guard orders to take photos (and
perhaps video). We also saw the security guard handed Ms. Crisp the recording device, which appears
to be Ms. Crisp’s smartphone. We confronted Ms. Crisp, while still standing on public property (e.g., the
sidewalk ), and informed Ms. Crisp that what she did constituted retaliation, harassment, intimidation,
and over-monitoring or increased monitoring, all of which are illegal under state and federal laws. Ms.
Crisp then turned around and ran back into the clinic.
An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a
charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing
discrimination. In addition to the protections against retaliation that are included in all of the laws
enforced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation, threat, harassment, or interference in
their exercise of their own rights or their encouragement of someone else's exercise of rights granted by
the ADA.
Covered individuals are people who have opposed unlawful practices, participated in proceedings, or
requested accommodations related to employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, age, or disability. Individuals who have a close association with someone who has
engaged in such protected activity also are covered individuals.
As you may already be aware, [Redacted] first Open Letter to the Board of Directors of GVHC, dated
December 2, 2014, (enclosed herein) [Redacted] raised the issues of hostile work environment and
discrimination, among others. Over 150 people co-signed [Redacted], many of whom participated in the

2. 2
rally of December 19, 2014. Therefore, we are all considered “covered” individuals under state and
federal laws.
Further our rallies and letters opposed the practice of unlawful discrimination; they, therefore, are
protected activities, including:
 Complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others;
 Threatening to file a charge of discrimination;
 Picketing in opposition to discrimination; or
 Refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory.
Opposition is informing an employer that one believes that he/she is engaging in prohibited
discrimination.1
Opposition is protected from retaliation as long as it is based on a reasonable, good-
faith belief that the complained practice or order violates anti-discrimination law; and the manner of the
opposition is reasonable.
Similarly, California law prohibits an employer from retaliating against any employee who engages in
protected activity under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) which is contained in the
California's Government Code at section 12900 and those that follow. Government Code section 12940,
subdivision (h), protects from retaliation employees who resist or object to discrimination or
harassment. That provision makes it unlawful “[f]or any employer … or person to discharge, expel, or
otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden
under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding
under this part.”
California Labor Code Section 1102.5 affords employees even broader protection under the law. In fact,
it is illegal in the State of California to retaliate against any employee who provides information to a
government or law enforcement agency where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the
information discloses a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal statute, rule, or regulation. It
should be noted that information regarding discrimination and other violations of state and federal laws
by GVHC and its executive team have been provided to multiple government and law enforcement
agencies, including the California Department of Justice and HRSA.
Furthermore, California Health and Safety Code 1278.5 provides anti-retaliation protected for health
care whistleblowers. Subdivision (a) of that section explains that it’s the public policy of the State of
California to encourage patients, nurses, members of medical staff, and other health care workers to
notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. The law further states that
no health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in any manner, against any patient, employee, members
of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the health facility because that person has done
any protected act, including complaining to the facility regarding the quality of care, services or
1
In 2011, the US Supreme Court held in Kasten v Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (2011) that
even oral complaints by employees about not being properly compensated constitute a protected activity within
the meaning of anti-retaliation laws.

3. 3
conditions at the facility. Health & Safety Code sec. 1278.5(b)(1). See the Third Letter to the Board of
Directors, dated December 11, 2014, concerning patient care and quality and discussing panel overload
and insurance fraud. This letter has been provided to multiple government agencies, including HRSA and
CA DOJ.
Lastly, it is a criminal offense to punish whistleblowers who report to law enforcement official truthful
information about the possible commission of a federal offense. See Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 1107.
[Redacted] the actions by Ms. Crisp on December 19 constituted adverse actions, taken to keep
someone from opposing discriminatory practices (in addition to violations of state and federal laws
[Redacted]). The taking of pictures and videos is considered a threat, intimidation, monitoring and/or
increased surveillance. In fact, Ms. Crisp told others that “everyone that participated in the rally will be
fired.”
Furthermore, Ms. Crisp instructed [Redacted] to call the police – not once, but three times. [Redacted]
knew that the rally was peaceful and lawful and initially refused. After further coercions by Ms. Crisp
and fearful for her own job, [Redacted] called the police, with hesitation and reservations. The police
refused to come out. Actually, I had already called the Modesto Police Department the day before
(December 18) to inform them of our rally and received authorization from the Police to carry out our
peaceful and lawful rally. Ms. Crisp’s actions and orders on December 19 are, therefore, yet another
example of attempting to file a false police report and intimidation, which I believe violated one or more
GVHC code of conduct (e.g., Major Violations; Dishonesty).2
In conclusion, I respectfully request that an independent third party investigate this matter. I believe a
third party is necessary because of the potential involvement by one or more members of the executive
team (e.g., Mark Millan). For example, did Ms. Crisp receive orders from Mr. Millan? Furthermore,
based on Michael Buda’s discriminatory statements against foreign medical graduates [Redacted], HR is
not the appropriate department to conduct this investigation and Mr. Buda, in particular, is conflicted
out of this matter. Therefore, I respectfully request an independent third party to investigate this
grievance complaint, including the issues of harassment, intimation, retaliation, over-monitoring,
increased monitoring, threat, and false reporting, under both state and federal laws.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this grievance complaint. Please acknowledge receipt of this
complaint. I look forward to your response and the outcome of the investigation.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ [Redacted]
West Modesto, 6th
St. Clinic
Enclosures: First Open Letter to the Board of Directors; Third Letter to the Board of Directors
2
The investigator should look into whom, if any, directed Ms. Crisp on December 19.