Ashley's Apple Saga
Ashley Gjovik was a Senior Engineering Program Manager at Apple from 2015-2021, where she worked in Apple’s Software and Hardware Engineering organizations on new product development. After facing increasing retaliation in response to her attempts to escalate complaints internally, she took her complaints to regulators, the press, and the public in July 2021. Gjovik documented and exposed unsafe work conditions, disturbing surveillance and intimidation practices, and systemic malfeasance at Apple Inc. Due to Apple's culture of secrecy, Gjovik was likely the first corporate Apple employee to publicly file charges against Apple with government agencies while employed, including complaint with the U.S. EPA, U.S. NLRB, California Dept. of Labor., U.S. SEC, and U.S Dept. of Justice.
Apple fired Gjovik on Sept. 9 2021, without explanation and less than two weeks after Gjovik filed government charges against Apple. Apple fired Gjovik the day before she was scheduled to testify to a federal agency about Apple. A corporate “Threat Assessment & Workplace Violence” investigator abruptly demanded to meet with Gjovik while she was on administrative leave, leading Gjovik to complain in writing to Apple about “witness intimidation” the day before her federal affidavit. A few hours later, Apple sent Gjovik a notice of termination vaguely claiming she violated Apple’s confidentiality policies and directing her to contact Workplace Violence with any questions.
Gjovik’s disclosures to the US EPA in March-July 2021, led to federal inspections of Apple’s operations at her office (a “Triple Superfund" toxic waste dump site) on August 19 2021. The regulator found a number of potential safety issues that put Gjovik and her coworkers at risk for exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and toxic gases. The US EPA ordered numerous corrective actions, including repairs and mandatory chemical exposure testing.
Gjovik's complaints about her Superfund office in 2021 were the direct result of knowledge gained from a traumatic experience in 2020 where she fell severely ill and became disabled living at a new apartment complex in Santa Clara. She discovered the apartments were built on a toxic clean-up site and subsequent environmental exposure doctors diagnosed her illness as acute exposure to solvents. Through the experience of advocating for further mitigation and public health intervention, Gjovik learned about the engineering and regulatory obligations for toxic waste clean-up sites. She also published an expose in March 2021 which led additional exposure victims to come forward. In 2023, she would discover it was Apple who was responsible for the pollution and exposure.
In July 2022, Gjovik won an Unemployment Insurance appeal against Apple with a California ALJ finding Gjovik was terminated for reasons other than misconduct, she “had not received warnings,” and Apple’s termination notice was “vague and incomplete.” Ashley M. Gjovik, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Case No. 7253819, July 27 2022.
In February of 2023, Gjovik's Public Records Act requests revealed that in addition to the Santa Clara apartments being located on state and federal toxic waste clean-up sites, that her ex-employer, Apple, was also operating a secret semiconductor manufacturing plant < 300 feet from the windows of the apartments. Gjovik uncovered multiple regulatory violations and spills, leaks, and dumping of dangerous chemicals and gases ongoing, including around the time she and others were ill.
On June 12 2023, Gjovik filed a complaint to US EPA, California EPA, California Air Resource Board, and Santa Clara HazMat about Apple's secret silicon fabrication activities at 3250 Scott Blvd which led to US EPA inspections, reports, and notice of violations. The BAAQMD also cited Apple for air pollution violations at the location.
Gjovik’s charges and disclosures to the US NLRB led to four decisions of merit in her favor. On January 30 2023, the US NLRB found merit that substantial evidence supports Gjovik’s allegations that Apple’s employment policies and non-disclosure agreements (32-CA-284428) and a threatening email sent by the CEO to staff in September 2021 (32-CA-284441) all violated federal labor law.
In September 2024 the NLRB issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing against Apple alleging that multiple of Apple’s national work policies violate federal labor law, including their confidentiality requirements and surveillance practices. Gjovik’s charge about Apple’s workplace polices and employment agreements (32-CA-284428) led to the first Complaint of a nation-wide NLRA violation by Apple. The claim was settled with a trilateral national settlement agreement between NLRB, Gjovik, and Apple in April 2025. Apple’s explanation for firing Gjovik vaguely cited their confidentiality policies, which have now been found to violate federal law.
Gjovik filed two NLRB charges in August-September 2021, alleging she was threatened, intimidated, coerced, surveilled, and retaliated against for exercising her federally protected labor rights and for reporting Apple’s misconduct to the NLRB. (32-CA-282142, 32-CA-283161). In December 2024, U.S. NLRB issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing against Apple alleging Apple threatened, suspended, and terminated Gjovik’s employment in violation of federal labor laws. Gjovik also filed additional NLRB charges against Apple over Apple’s post termination harassment, intimidation, and obstruction but the NLRB has repeatedly refused to intervene (01-CA-365726, 01-CA-345931, 01-CA-332897).
Gjovik also filed whistleblower charges to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Whistleblower Protection Program with allegations of retaliation for exercising federally protected whistleblower rights. OSHA docketed the case under CERCLA (42 U.S.C. §9610), SOX (18 U.S.C.A. §1514A), and OSH Act (29 U.S.C. §660) statutes but failed to investigate for years, repeatedly trying to get Gjovik to withdraw her charges, and eventually dismissing based entirely on Apple’s position statement and incorrect legal theories. Gjovik appealed to the OSH Act dismissal but it went to same the problematic OSHA teams and with no judicial review available. (Apple Inc/Gjovik/9-3290-22-051, U.S. Department of Labor OSHA, 2021-2024).
Gjovik appealed the CERCLA dismissal to the U.S. DOL OALJ and asked to add RCRA, Clean Air Act, and other retaliation claims after learning about Apple’s semiconductor manufacturing activities. The Boston OALJ ALJ cancelled the hearing and granted Apple’s Motion to Dismiss based on Apple’s unilateral claim that CERCLA doesn’t apply to Apple and that other federal whistleblower protections only apply to matters at the specific office building that the employee is formally assigned to. Gjovik appealed to U.S. DOL ARB in 2024 and the appeal is still awaiting a decision. Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, U.S. Dept. of Labor OALJ, 2024-CER-00001; Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-0060, U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB (2021-).
By Sept. 2023, Gjovik still did not have final agency decisions on her retaliation claims against Apple and her two-year statute of limitations for many potential civil claims was set to expire. In order to preserve her civil claims and to get justice for the severe physical harm Apple caused her in 2020, Gjovik filed a civil lawsuit in a US District Court against Apple on September 7 2023. The lawsuit is a RICO case that includes retaliation claims, labor law violations, toxic torts, unfair business practices, civil rights violations, breach of contract, and harassment claims.
Her case also includes claims for retaliation due participation as a legislative witness and as a victim of crime, arising out of her pre-termination investigation and complaints about Apple semiconductor manufacturing activities and her resulting injuries. The U.S. Court approved these claims to move forward. Her RICO 18 U.S. Code § 1962(c)-(d) claims also include Predicate Acts arising out of Apple’s criminal retaliation against her, and Apple’s criminal obstruction of her complaints and the resulting government investigations and proceedings. She requested treble damages of her back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages as an injury to her business and property.
The civil litigation also incorporated her U.S. EEOC and Cal. DFEH and OSHA complaints and pending California DIR retaliation and 18 U.S.C.A. §1514A whistleblower claims. Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division; Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 24-6058, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2024-2025); Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 25-2028, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2025-); Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc, RCI-CM-842830, California Dept. of Labor DIR (2021-).
In March 2022, Gjovik learned Apple’s supposed justification for her termination was that Apple supposedly fired her because she disclosed information information about Apple’s invasive surveillance practices, coercive biometrics collection, and disquieting medical studies on employees. In response to Apple’s claim, Gjovik filed additional charges domestically and with foreign governments on those matters, sharing even more information about the programs and her concerns. Following Gjovik’s charges, Bavaria is investigating Apple’s biometrics engineering office in the German region, and the U.S. FTC is also looking into her complaint that Apple developed Face ID with coerced and otherwise nonconsensual data. The US Court, US NLRB, and US Department of Labor will also rule on the issue as part of Gjovik’s retaliation cases.
In 2025, the California legislature introduced a bill (AB-1331 “workplace surveillance”) that codifies Apple’s supposed legitimate justification for firing Gjovik as an express unlawful act giving rise to a retaliation claim and remedy under the labor code. The bill has been repeated approved and appears to be on its way to becoming a law.
Gjovik worked at Apple for over six years, where she was responsible for high-risk projects including managing entire iOS software updates, leading software failure analysis following new product introduction, functioning as a chief of staff for several executives, and working in Apple’s legal department where she ironically led efforts to establish Apple’s first company-wide AI ethics policy.
Gjovik is now a lawyer – she graduated from law school in 2022 with a Juris Doctor and a certificate in Public International Law, with honors. She also attended Oxford University in 2021 for an intensive Transitional Justice program, which she said inspired the holistic approach she has taken attempting to reform Apple’s business practices. She founded the D&G Center in 2022 and was elected as the Whistleblower Officer on the IBA Anti-Corruption Compliance subcommittee in 2023. Gjovik is representing herself pro se on all of her Apple cases and charges – with strategic and moral support from a community of human rights activists, whistleblowers, and labor organizers.
Last updated: Sept. 2025
Location Resources:
Apple fired Gjovik on Sept. 9 2021, without explanation and less than two weeks after Gjovik filed government charges against Apple. Apple fired Gjovik the day before she was scheduled to testify to a federal agency about Apple. A corporate “Threat Assessment & Workplace Violence” investigator abruptly demanded to meet with Gjovik while she was on administrative leave, leading Gjovik to complain in writing to Apple about “witness intimidation” the day before her federal affidavit. A few hours later, Apple sent Gjovik a notice of termination vaguely claiming she violated Apple’s confidentiality policies and directing her to contact Workplace Violence with any questions.
Gjovik’s disclosures to the US EPA in March-July 2021, led to federal inspections of Apple’s operations at her office (a “Triple Superfund" toxic waste dump site) on August 19 2021. The regulator found a number of potential safety issues that put Gjovik and her coworkers at risk for exposure to carcinogenic chemicals and toxic gases. The US EPA ordered numerous corrective actions, including repairs and mandatory chemical exposure testing.
Gjovik's complaints about her Superfund office in 2021 were the direct result of knowledge gained from a traumatic experience in 2020 where she fell severely ill and became disabled living at a new apartment complex in Santa Clara. She discovered the apartments were built on a toxic clean-up site and subsequent environmental exposure doctors diagnosed her illness as acute exposure to solvents. Through the experience of advocating for further mitigation and public health intervention, Gjovik learned about the engineering and regulatory obligations for toxic waste clean-up sites. She also published an expose in March 2021 which led additional exposure victims to come forward. In 2023, she would discover it was Apple who was responsible for the pollution and exposure.
In July 2022, Gjovik won an Unemployment Insurance appeal against Apple with a California ALJ finding Gjovik was terminated for reasons other than misconduct, she “had not received warnings,” and Apple’s termination notice was “vague and incomplete.” Ashley M. Gjovik, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Case No. 7253819, July 27 2022.
In February of 2023, Gjovik's Public Records Act requests revealed that in addition to the Santa Clara apartments being located on state and federal toxic waste clean-up sites, that her ex-employer, Apple, was also operating a secret semiconductor manufacturing plant < 300 feet from the windows of the apartments. Gjovik uncovered multiple regulatory violations and spills, leaks, and dumping of dangerous chemicals and gases ongoing, including around the time she and others were ill.
On June 12 2023, Gjovik filed a complaint to US EPA, California EPA, California Air Resource Board, and Santa Clara HazMat about Apple's secret silicon fabrication activities at 3250 Scott Blvd which led to US EPA inspections, reports, and notice of violations. The BAAQMD also cited Apple for air pollution violations at the location.
Gjovik’s charges and disclosures to the US NLRB led to four decisions of merit in her favor. On January 30 2023, the US NLRB found merit that substantial evidence supports Gjovik’s allegations that Apple’s employment policies and non-disclosure agreements (32-CA-284428) and a threatening email sent by the CEO to staff in September 2021 (32-CA-284441) all violated federal labor law.
In September 2024 the NLRB issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing against Apple alleging that multiple of Apple’s national work policies violate federal labor law, including their confidentiality requirements and surveillance practices. Gjovik’s charge about Apple’s workplace polices and employment agreements (32-CA-284428) led to the first Complaint of a nation-wide NLRA violation by Apple. The claim was settled with a trilateral national settlement agreement between NLRB, Gjovik, and Apple in April 2025. Apple’s explanation for firing Gjovik vaguely cited their confidentiality policies, which have now been found to violate federal law.
Gjovik filed two NLRB charges in August-September 2021, alleging she was threatened, intimidated, coerced, surveilled, and retaliated against for exercising her federally protected labor rights and for reporting Apple’s misconduct to the NLRB. (32-CA-282142, 32-CA-283161). In December 2024, U.S. NLRB issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing against Apple alleging Apple threatened, suspended, and terminated Gjovik’s employment in violation of federal labor laws. Gjovik also filed additional NLRB charges against Apple over Apple’s post termination harassment, intimidation, and obstruction but the NLRB has repeatedly refused to intervene (01-CA-365726, 01-CA-345931, 01-CA-332897).
Gjovik also filed whistleblower charges to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Whistleblower Protection Program with allegations of retaliation for exercising federally protected whistleblower rights. OSHA docketed the case under CERCLA (42 U.S.C. §9610), SOX (18 U.S.C.A. §1514A), and OSH Act (29 U.S.C. §660) statutes but failed to investigate for years, repeatedly trying to get Gjovik to withdraw her charges, and eventually dismissing based entirely on Apple’s position statement and incorrect legal theories. Gjovik appealed to the OSH Act dismissal but it went to same the problematic OSHA teams and with no judicial review available. (Apple Inc/Gjovik/9-3290-22-051, U.S. Department of Labor OSHA, 2021-2024).
Gjovik appealed the CERCLA dismissal to the U.S. DOL OALJ and asked to add RCRA, Clean Air Act, and other retaliation claims after learning about Apple’s semiconductor manufacturing activities. The Boston OALJ ALJ cancelled the hearing and granted Apple’s Motion to Dismiss based on Apple’s unilateral claim that CERCLA doesn’t apply to Apple and that other federal whistleblower protections only apply to matters at the specific office building that the employee is formally assigned to. Gjovik appealed to U.S. DOL ARB in 2024 and the appeal is still awaiting a decision. Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, U.S. Dept. of Labor OALJ, 2024-CER-00001; Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-0060, U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB (2021-).
By Sept. 2023, Gjovik still did not have final agency decisions on her retaliation claims against Apple and her two-year statute of limitations for many potential civil claims was set to expire. In order to preserve her civil claims and to get justice for the severe physical harm Apple caused her in 2020, Gjovik filed a civil lawsuit in a US District Court against Apple on September 7 2023. The lawsuit is a RICO case that includes retaliation claims, labor law violations, toxic torts, unfair business practices, civil rights violations, breach of contract, and harassment claims.
Her case also includes claims for retaliation due participation as a legislative witness and as a victim of crime, arising out of her pre-termination investigation and complaints about Apple semiconductor manufacturing activities and her resulting injuries. The U.S. Court approved these claims to move forward. Her RICO 18 U.S. Code § 1962(c)-(d) claims also include Predicate Acts arising out of Apple’s criminal retaliation against her, and Apple’s criminal obstruction of her complaints and the resulting government investigations and proceedings. She requested treble damages of her back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages as an injury to her business and property.
The civil litigation also incorporated her U.S. EEOC and Cal. DFEH and OSHA complaints and pending California DIR retaliation and 18 U.S.C.A. §1514A whistleblower claims. Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division; Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 24-6058, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2024-2025); Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 25-2028, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2025-); Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc, RCI-CM-842830, California Dept. of Labor DIR (2021-).
In March 2022, Gjovik learned Apple’s supposed justification for her termination was that Apple supposedly fired her because she disclosed information information about Apple’s invasive surveillance practices, coercive biometrics collection, and disquieting medical studies on employees. In response to Apple’s claim, Gjovik filed additional charges domestically and with foreign governments on those matters, sharing even more information about the programs and her concerns. Following Gjovik’s charges, Bavaria is investigating Apple’s biometrics engineering office in the German region, and the U.S. FTC is also looking into her complaint that Apple developed Face ID with coerced and otherwise nonconsensual data. The US Court, US NLRB, and US Department of Labor will also rule on the issue as part of Gjovik’s retaliation cases.
In 2025, the California legislature introduced a bill (AB-1331 “workplace surveillance”) that codifies Apple’s supposed legitimate justification for firing Gjovik as an express unlawful act giving rise to a retaliation claim and remedy under the labor code. The bill has been repeated approved and appears to be on its way to becoming a law.
Gjovik worked at Apple for over six years, where she was responsible for high-risk projects including managing entire iOS software updates, leading software failure analysis following new product introduction, functioning as a chief of staff for several executives, and working in Apple’s legal department where she ironically led efforts to establish Apple’s first company-wide AI ethics policy.
Gjovik is now a lawyer – she graduated from law school in 2022 with a Juris Doctor and a certificate in Public International Law, with honors. She also attended Oxford University in 2021 for an intensive Transitional Justice program, which she said inspired the holistic approach she has taken attempting to reform Apple’s business practices. She founded the D&G Center in 2022 and was elected as the Whistleblower Officer on the IBA Anti-Corruption Compliance subcommittee in 2023. Gjovik is representing herself pro se on all of her Apple cases and charges – with strategic and moral support from a community of human rights activists, whistleblowers, and labor organizers.
Last updated: Sept. 2025
Location Resources:
|
825 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale, California (Superfund Apple Office)
|
3250 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara, California (Secret Silicon Fab)
|
How it Started / How it's Going (2023)
"What a Mess" Iceberg of Apple's Misconduct (2023)
Key Reports
|
US EPA: Requesting Inspection and Corrective Actions (July 2021-Feb 2022)
US EPA: 8/19/21 Inspection of TRW Microwave Superfund site
US EPA: 7/2021-4/2022 Superfund Exhaust Reentrainment into HVAC for TRW Microwave
US EPA: 4/2021 - Triple Site, Site Management Plan
|
US EPA: 7/30/21 TRW Microwave Inspection Travel Request Justification (Ashley)
US EPA: 7-8/2021 Apple NDA About Environmental Inspections
US EPA: 2/2022 TRW Microwave Potentially Responsible Party, Apple Inc
US EPA: 8/29/2021 Ashley Gjovik Complaint about Apple and TRW Microwave
| ||||||||||||||||
High-Level Timeline (2023)
Apple Inc