Talk:Kaiser Permanente

Group Health acquisition

Shouldn’t there be some mention of the acquisition (if that’s the right term) of Group Health?

(I see one earlier mention of doing so here on the Talk page, from 2017, but it didn’t get implemented.) Rob Cranfill (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate "See also" entry?

This is the only entry under "see also" --

"Heather O'Rourke (1975–1988) – child actress who became ill in 1987 and was misdiagnosed by doctors of Kaiser Permanente Hospital. She died on February 1, 1988, and a lawsuit followed shortly thereafter."

Isn't that a little random? Is that the proper use of the "see also" section?

Maybe it's appropriate. I'm just bringing it up.

Middleground1 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Labor Unions Conclusion

The section on controversies concludes with a substantial paragraph about the measures being taken by the firm to address the union's issues. While it does contain some easily-verified statistics, such as the number of individuals involved and the timeframe of negotiations, much of the paragraph is dedicated to promoting Kaiser as making substantial changes very much in favor of the company. The fact that there is no citation but the is a direct link to Kaiser's Labor Management Partnership website leads me to believe at best this is an irresponsible addition and at worst a press release added in bad-faith. In either case until a citation is added I believe everything after the fourth sentence needs to be removed. TenantSea (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The section was challenged FOUR years ago. I removed it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This article needs semi-protection

This article is about to get more a lot more attention because Kamala Harris is the current Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States and was born at Kaiser Oakland Medical Center in 1964. This article is seeing vandalism on average about once a month but I suspect that is about to go way up.

I just caught and reverted apparent vandalism to the infobox in January 2024, which no one had caught. (Kaiser was founded in Oakland, not Fontana.) This article needs to be put under semi-protection so that only established users can edit it. Coolcaesar (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: You can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but typically, protection is a reaction to problems and not preventative for anticipated problems. Feel free to make the request and try the system out though. It cannot hurt and making a case always helps.

The reason is that in Wikipedia vandalism is often a benefit. Usually Wikipedia editors or the bots detect it quickly and remove it, and letting vandals edit things is often a signal that other people are interested in seeing an article developed also.

As to the vandalism you questioned, I know nothing about this. KP reports that it offered health services at the Kaiser Steel Mill in Fontana. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Kaiser lost class action lawsuit

(modified on 25th - refs restored/added) See Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Should we improve+link or incorporate? Major jegal case Kaiser lost. (Sources there.)

Haro v. Kaiser was a class action lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, settled for $22 million, after the court rejected Kaiser’s PREP Act immunity defense, finding that uncompensated time spent on mandatory COVID testing violated California's minimum wage laws.

In Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser unsuccessfully invoked PREP Act immunity where employee Regina Haro sued her employer under a California minimum wage statute for failing to compensate her for time spent taking mandated COVID tests, which required her to arrive at work 15 minutes before the start of her shift. The court reasoned her claim was not “causally connected to any of [defendant’s] covered countermeasures” because the defendant “could just as easily have implemented the screenings without the requirement that employees show up early. In that case, the screening procedures would simply have occurred while employees were on the clock and [plaintiff] would not have a minimum-wage claim.”

Multiple courts have ruled on claims that Haro set precedent.

The case was settled. Terms were not disclosed at the time of the PREP Act ruling. After the Haro case was consolidated into a Kaiser staff class action with other wage theft claims, the litigation resulted in a settlement; under its terms, payments by Kaiser totaled over $22 million. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don't dump the entire content of you comment into the 'edit summary field'. As to the content, the sources provided don't show significant coverage in secondary sources, just as the comment by Aviationwikiflight (talk · contribs) noted in the draft notes. One citation to a law review, and a source that appears to be a grievance site - kaiserbadnews.com - that does not appear to exist any more. All the other sources are primary. Not adequate coverage. Do you have any other sources? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Umm... You ignored my question: Should we improve+link or incorporate? Besides, WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

It has 6 citations, 3 are to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One is a Judge's memorandum in a different case that significantly covered the subject case - mentioning it by name 9 times. The judge denies AstraZeneca's Motion to Dismiss and Haro is mentioned so much because it is a key part of the rationale - the basis for the judge's memorandum. Adequate to meet GNG. Judge Robert J. Shelby's memorandum is secondary source; it provides his thought and reflection based on primary sources, the ruling in Haro. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas. "All the other sources are primary." is false.

Not to mention Redd v. Amazon.com, which also cites Haro. RememberOrwell (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don't shout. I ignored your question because the matter at hand, based on what you have presented so far, clearly did not rise to the level of attention that warrants inclusion. The only independent sources you provide were the law review and kaiserbadnews.com; the latter is as I described it - both a grievance site and dead - not a reliable source. The others are primary sources, so no, except in specific circumstances, they aren't reliable sources for the purpose of establishing a rationale for inclusion.

You write "Not to mention Redd v Amazon.com, which also cites Haro". Setting aside that mentioning a source is not equivalent to providing a link to a source, court case documents themselves are primary sources and aren't adequate to establish the significance or lack thereof of the matter. You need secondary sources to do that. Was this covered by any reputable news organization? If so, great! Establish that by providing a link to the article here. Lawsuits against health care providers are so frequent that attempting to include them based on primary sources would overwhelm any article about a given health care provider. You must be able to cite news articles that refer to the lawsuit for it to begin to be considered for important enough to be included. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Kaiser has a pattern of losing or settling class action wage claim lawsuits. It's clearly notable. Should we improve+link or incorporate some of what I wrote and sourced about Haro?

You're ignoring what I've written again. Please don't. NOR Policy: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." So stop insisting otherwise.

I did not merely write Not to mention Redd v Amazon.com, which also cites Haro. I already provided a link to a source - reproduced as #3, below, days ago.

Let me try again: A court ruling (judge's memo) is a primary source (authoritative law) for the case it decided, we agree, but when it refers to a prior, different case, it acts as a discussion or application of that prior case, making it a secondary source for the case being analyzed. In essence, the ruling's reference to another case highlights that other case as the core rule being followed or distinguished. This is the case with source 2 (Dresen) and 3 (Haro).

Why should I do work you ask me to do when you are ignoring what I've already written? Your claim about what I must be able to do doesn't make it true; it's not backed by policy. WP:PILLARS doesn't even mention 'secondary'. It does insist on verifiability and reliability of sources. Besides there is no policy that says two secondary sources are required, or that they have to be news sources. There are some words someone put in the Template:AFC submission and the like, and your claims. Please don't make up policy. Please stick to actual policy e.g. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:DUE. Or present an argument. Please do not present a decree you have no authority to make as if it is policy.

Don't misrepresent what I'm doing. I'm not trying to include a regular or failed lawsuit or one without a reliable secondary source or based only on primary sources. Straw man. It's a class action. And again: Multiple courts have ruled on claims that Haro set precedent. source 2 (Dresen) and 3 (Haro). And it settled for $22 million.

Please review what is emphasized : NOR Policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

Clearly, multiple secondary news sources is not a policy retirement; primary sources are welcome too. And you even acknowledge "in specific circumstances" primary sources are "reliable sources for the purpose of establishing a rationale for inclusion" ! Agreed!

NOR Policy: ""A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement."

NOR Policy: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. " - source 2 (Dresen) and 3 (Haro) do not fit this definition.

NOR Policy: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event."- source 2 (Dresen) and 3 (Haro) do fit this definition.

I've made factual claims rooted in policy. Please heed. If you can show I'm in error, go ahead.

RememberOrwell (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

This is what happens when primary sources are interpreted by 'regular folks' who aren't skilled in the language of law (I count myself among them) - that's why they have to be used extremely cautiously. Kaiser didn't 'lose' the Haro v Kaiser case nor settle it - it was dismissed without prejudice. None of the publicly available sources provided mention a settlement, nor a settlement of specifically $22 million. A deep search online reveals no $22 million settlements involving Kaiser.

The Alameda County Court documents are paywalled; sorry, at $5.50 per document, and 168 documents, I'm not spending nearly a thousand bucks to dig into this. Even digging through all 168 documents to find ones that are directly relevant would cost hundreds - and frankly, I'm not spending even one penny to settle a wikipedia dispute (even though I have in the past). Lacking any public documentation of said settlement - which would explictly be a different case, not Haro v Kaiser, which is how you characterize it, I don't see any path forward. I'm also not interested in a massive wikilawyering dispute about the sourcing. I'd suggest an RfC would be a good place to start; we need more than just two people to resolve this. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow! "After the Haro case was consolidated..." with citation. WP:IDHT in spades. Will proceed. RememberOrwell (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You provided two sources for the claim of a settlement. The first source nowhere mentions a $22 million dollar settlement. The second one is paywalled. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Your claim of consolidation is supported by an unacceptable deadlinked grievance site, which you have yet to even acknowledge (and digging through archive.org, some articles from the site are available, others are not, suggesting they were expunged). And again, it doesn't make sense to claim that "Haro v. Kaiser was a class action lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, settled for $22 million" when Haro v. Kaiser was dismissed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

SMH. More WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting - and uncivil - deployment of CIR. A claim that I'm incompetent, while you're the editor attempting to add poorly sourced content to an article is - at minimum - creative. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: describe my specific incompetence in this matter that you perceive, so that I can better understand the matter at hand.

Your last two comments here have been terse, couched digs at me, while repeatedly refusing to even acknowledge the troubling matter of using kaiserbadnews.com as a source in the content you propose adding to the article. As well, the fact that Haro v Kaiser was dismissed without prejudice in 2022 seems to elude your attention. That said, Fairley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals was settled - but that's a different case from what you're purporting was the one that was settled.

And still - there is not a single mention in any mainstream reliable news source that I can find - of this case. Which argues towards it being WP:UNDUE to an overarching article about Kaiser Permanente. I'm sure with enough digging, thousands of lawsuits, class-action and otherwise, have likely been instigated since KP was founded eighty years ago. We need more than "this lawsuit existed" as a rationale for inclusion. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)