​Ashley's Apple Legal Battle

Contents

  • U.S NLRB
  • U.S. DoL
  • California DoL
  • U.S. SEC
  • U.S. EEOC
  • U.S. & California EPA
  • My Apple Office (the TRW Microwave Superfund site)
  • Legal memos on Scribd are: here

U.S. NLRB

NLRA §7 & §8: Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) guarantees employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," as well as the right "to refrain from any or all such activities." Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7" of the Act.
​
Retaliation & Wrongful Termination (Aug 26, Sept 16)
  • Charges: 32-CA-282142 & 32-CA-283161
  • Press: "U.S. labor agency probes two complaints from Apple workers​," Reuters, Sept 2 2021 [link]

Unlawful Employee Policies (Oct 12, 2021)
  • Charges:  32-CA-284428 & 32-CA-284441:
  • "​Apple CEO’s Anti-Leak Edict Broke Law, Ex-Employee Alleges," Bloomberg, Oct 12 2021 [link]
  • "Former Apple employee alleges a Tim Cook email saying leakers 'do not belong' at the company violates worker-protection laws," Business Insider, Oct 12 2021 [link]
  • "Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions," Truthout, Dec 19 2021 [link]
​
1. Apple Employee Policies
  • Memo: nlrb_501_3-21_-_apple_handbook.pdf
  • Quote: ​The rule described in Cook’s memo and the policies cited in Gjovik’s complaint might be deemed legitimate under the Trump-era Boeing standard, but “most if not all” of them would probably be illegal under earlier, more pro-labor precedents, said University of Wyoming law professor and former NLRB attorney Michael Duff. A case like Gjovik’s offers the Biden appointees “an attractive vehicle” to establish a precedent more like the pre-Trump ones, which prohibited rules that workers could “reasonably construe” as banning legally protected activism, Duff said in an email. [link]​
  • Quote: "The Apple handbook includes a footnote stating that the company is not attempting to restrict its employees’ “rights to speak freely about wages, hours, or working conditions as legally permitted.” But Apple policy also generally forbids employees from making any public disclosures without prior approval, including statements to the press, and it orders employees to refrain from discussing “compensation, training, recruiting, and other human resource information” after leaving the company, which it attempts to enforce through non-disclosure agreements. The handbook also bars employees from sharing information about their coworkers’ “compensation, health information, or performance and disciplinary matters” without any footnotes about “rights to speak freely about wages, hours, or working conditions,” according to Gjovik’s complaint." [link]
​
2. Tim Cook's Email to Employees 
  • Memo: nlrb_501_3-21_-_tim_cook_memo.pdf
  • Quote: The current labor board is very likely to deem statements in Cook’s memo illegal, said former NLRB member Wilma Liebman, who chaired the agency under President Barack Obama. “What he’s saying here goes too far” by limiting discussion about meetings where workplace issues are addressed, rather than only leaks about intellectual property, Liebman said in an interview. “It’s restrictive of people’s ability to talk about employment policies.” [link]
  • Quote: Experts familiar with the NLRA, including former NLRB officials, have said that Gjovik has a strong case against Apple — especially her complaint about CEO Cook threatening the employees who leaked details about the meeting concerning pay equity. “What he’s saying here goes too far,” NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman told Bloomberg about the Cook memo. “It’s restrictive of people’s ability to talk about employment policies.” Mark Gaston Pearce, another former NLRB chair who, like Liebman, led the Board during the Obama administration, tweeted that Gjovik’s case could be “a vehicle” to reverse pro-management rulings by the Board under the Trump administration." [link]

3. Surveillance: 
  • Memo: nlrb_-_surveillance_addendum_.pdf
  • Quote: "The night before Gjovik was fired, she received a direct message on Twitter from a random helpful follower urging her to take steps to protect her privacy, in a general warning that invoked his own experience with private sector surveillance. Hours later, she asked her Twitter followers if it would be “over-paranoid” to worry about the security of her messages on Apple’s iCloud. Soon after, she began taking her personal information off of servers controlled by Apple and, as she told the tech publication Protocol, Gjovik began to unplug smart devices in her home. She told Truthout that she has no proof of the company using non-public information against her, but noted that internet trolls defending Apple have used information that she has not shared about her health and compensation to insult her, calling the matter a “nightmare sandwich.” Gjovik has also documented how supervisors at Apple were warning her to be wary of private-sector surveillance when she told them how she was locking horns with her property management company." [link]

Organized Harassment Campaign 

U.S. DOL

U.S. Department of Labor, Whistleblower Protection Program
1. Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. §660
  • Memo: dol_-_osha_retaliation_-_memo_v2.pdf
  • 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) -- (1) No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act ...or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this Act. -- (2) Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of this subsection may, within thirty days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination. "Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for exercising a variety of rights guaranteed under the OSH Act, such as filing a safety or health complaint with OSHA, raising a health and safety concern with their employers, participating in an OSHA inspection, or reporting a work-related injury or illness."
  • Quote: "By the middle of summer, things began to escalate. On July 23, Gjovik made The New York Times quote of the day for questioning why Apple management wanted its employees to return to office work as the Delta variant of COVID-19 started to spread throughout the country. Around the same time, she took to the company’s messaging platform, Slack, to ask her coworkers if they have had negative experiences dealing with HR, receiving numerous responses in the affirmative."  [link]

2. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9610
  • Memo: cercla_memo_-_gjovik_-_v2.pdf
  • §9610. Employee protection. (a) No person shall fire or in any other way discriminate against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against any employee or any authorized representative of employees by reason of the fact that such employee or representative has provided information to a State or to the Federal Government, filed, instituted, or caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under this Act... (b)....Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the Secretary of Labor shall make findings of fact. If he finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision incorporating an order therein and his findings, requiring the party committing such violation to take such affirmative action to abate the violation as the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate, including. but not limited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee or representative of employees to his former position with compensation.
​
3. Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), 18 U.S.C.A. §1514A
  • Memo: wpp_sox_memo_-_gjovik_v2.pdf
  • Quote: "The labour department will examine whether Apple retaliated over claims about occupational safety and hazardous waste management liability, alongside a third allegation that falls under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Sox, which sets out the rules for financial record keeping. Gjovik pointed to a potential conflict of interest regarding Apple board member Ronald Sugar, chair of the audit committee, as he was previously chief executive of Northrop Grumman, the defence company responsible for the dump — and maintenance — of waste materials beneath the Sunnyvale office. Sugar could not be immediately reached for comment."  [link]
  • §1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases. (a) No company .. may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee- (2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the SEC, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. (b) Enforcement action.-- (1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c), by- (A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor;  (c) Remedies.-- (1) In general.--An employee prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole. (2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under paragraph (1) shall include-- (C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees (B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and (A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discrimination;

"Apple faces probe over whether it retaliated against whistleblower. US labour department inquiry follows claims by ex-senior engineering program manager," Financial Times, Dec 13 2021 [link]
  • Quote: Stephen Kohn, an employment lawyer and an expert in US whistleblowing law, said the burden of proof needed for the agency to open an investigation was high, as the employee must have already established enough evidence that, unless rebutted, would prove the case. He said the case would be closely watched because it was especially rare for a labour dispute with Big Tech “to break into the public” domain. The labour department rarely investigated such cases, he added, because of the widespread use of non-disclosure agreements to “silence and intimidate whistleblowers”. [link]
  • Quote: Mary Inman, head of the international whistleblower practice at the law firm Constantine Cannon, described [Gjovik's] case as “a breath of fresh air” as Joe Biden’s administration signals a more aggressive stance to hold companies to account. [link]
  • Quote: "Gjovik’s case was “especially unusual” and noteworthy because of the three separate statutes or laws that may have been broken, said Michael Duff, a former attorney at the National Relations Labor Board. “Federal agencies exercise what in the context of criminal law is known as prosecutorial discretion,” he said. “They are very careful of what cases they move forward because they have scarce resources, so they must have a strong reason to believe they can prevail.” [link]
​

California DOL

California Department of Labor, Department of Industrial Relations, Retaliation
  • Case: Aug 29 2021 - Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., (RCI-CM-842830)
  • Brief: ca_dol_dir_-_gjovik_v_apple_-_memo.pdf
  • ​California Labor Code §6310 (Safety in Employment, OSHA) (a) No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their representative.... (4) Reported a work-related fatality, injury, or illness, requested access to occupational injury or illness reports and records... or exercised any other rights protected by the federal OSHA. (b) Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by their employer because the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in their employment or place of employment.... shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.​

U.S. SEC

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission​ (SEC):

8/31 - Fraud, Misrepresentation, & Conflict of Interest re: Stewart 1 Apple office building, Ronald Sugar, & Lisa Jackson 
  • Charge: 16304-612-987-465, see sec_sept_1_whisteblower_complaint.pdf
  • Brief: sec_sugar_memo.pdf
  • Press: "Apple faces probe over whether it retaliated against whistleblower. US labour department inquiry follows claims by ex-senior engineering program manager," Financial Times, Dec 13 2021 [link]

​10/26 - Fraud & Misrepresentation re: Confidentiality Agreements
  • Charge: 16353-506-600-213, see: sec_filing_-_oct_27_-_apple_response_to_nia_impact_capital_.pdf
  • Brief: ​sec_-_oct_26_filing_-_gjovik_memo.pdf
  • Quote: As far as her complaint to the SEC is concerned, Gjovik said she wants to stop the company from misrepresenting how it treats its employees. The complaint centers around a shareholder, Nia Impact Capital, who alleged that Apple is exposing itself to employment litigation risk by enforcing a culture of secrecy beyond that which is necessary to protect its trade secrets. The company responded by claiming that “Apple does not limit employees’ and contractors’ ability to speak freely about harassment, discrimination, and other unlawful acts in the workplace.” Gjovik’s SEC complaint alleges that these are “false & misleading statements of material importance” by Apple, citing an agency commissioner who warned in September 2020 against companies engaged in “woke-washing where companies attempt to portray themselves in a light they believe will be advantageous for them on issues like diversity.” [link]
  • "Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions," Truthout, Dec 19 2021 [link]
  • "Apple says workers have right to discuss pay, but scrutiny of employee policy intensifies," Apple Insider, Nov 19 2021 [link]
  • "Apple fights shareholder call for more transparency," Financial Times, Oct 27 2021 [link]
  • "SEC allows AAPL Shareholders to Push For Details on Apple NDAs," The Mac Observer, Dec 23 2021 [link]
​

U.S. EEOC

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & California Department of Employment & Fair Housing
  • Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc., Right to Sue Notice granted; incorporates U.S. DOJ Civil Rights (98145-RJH)​
  • "Former Apple Employee Alleges Workplace Violations and Wrongful Termination," Justia, Sept 20 2021 [here]
  • "Program manager fired by Apple allegedly over workplace complaints receives right to sue from federal agency," Business Insider, Sept 10 2021 [link]
  • "Apple Fires Manager Who Complained; She Gains Right to Sue," Bloomberg, Sept 9 2021 [link]
  • "Apple Fires Program Manager Who Accused Bosses of Harassment, Intimidation," Gizmodo, Sept 9 2021 [link]

U.S. & California EPA

Federal EPA – Environmental Violations 
California EPA – Environmental Complaint 
  • Aug 30, 2021 Complaint: COMP-51794 

The Apple Office

US Dept of Labor - TRW Microwave Superfund - Overview Memo
File Size: 6234 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
  • From Jan 2017 through Sept 2021, Ashley worked in Apple's "Stewart 1" office building at 825 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale CA. Apple's leased the building since ~2015.
  • The building & the property it sits on were declared an EPA Superfund site in the 1990s. The EPA refers to it as the "TRW Microwave" Superfund site. The responsible party (who dumped the chemicals & thus who is still responsible for cleaning them up safely) is Northrop Grumman who acquired TRW Microwave. 
  • The EPA page for it is here: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0901181
  • Due to the close proximity and intermingled contaminated groundwater plumes of two other Superfund sites, the TRW Superfund site is considered part of the "Triple Site," a group of three Superfunds. 
Picture
From the EPA website here: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0901181
Picture
From the EPA website here: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Healthenv&id=0901181

References