Ashley's Apple Legal Battle
"Docket" of Cases, Charges, & Complaints
- U.S. NLRB (Coercion/Retaliation & Unlawful Policies - Merit Found)
- U.S. Dept of Labor Whistleblower Protection Program (SOX, CERCLA, OSHA)
- U.S. SEC
- California Dept of Labor DIR (Retaliation & Unlawful Policies)
- California Unemployment Insurance
- California DFEH & U.S. EEOC
- Retaliation & Pretext
- Invasion of Privacy Complaints
- U.S. EPA
- California EPA & OSHA
- Witness Intimidation
- The TRW Microwave Superfund site
Additional resources:
- Interviews & press coverage
- "Justice at Apple" project: Open Letter & Document Repo
- Ashley's "Field Notes on Regulatory Capture": Part I & Part II
U.S. National Labor Review Board (NLRB)
Retaliation & Wrongful Termination
- Charges: 32-CA-282142 & 32-CA-283161 & 32-CA-288816; March 2021-Current
"U.S. labor agency probes two complaints from Apple workers," Reuters, Sept 2 2021 [link]
"U.S. labour board examines retaliation claims against Apple," Financial Times, Sept 2 2021 [link]
"In her letter to the NLRB, she said Apple’s employee relations department “intimidated me not to speak about my safety concerns”, that a manager advised she quit Apple and that she was subject to sexism and a “dramatically increased” workload. Matters escalated when she took her complaints to Apple’s Slack channels, specifically a 2,000-member forum for female software engineers. She said she was flooded with supportive comments and similar stories of workplace harassment — but she had since been banned from using Slack as part of her administrative leave." [link]
"U.S. labor agency probes two complaints from Apple workers," Reuters, Sept 2 2021 [link]
"U.S. labour board examines retaliation claims against Apple," Financial Times, Sept 2 2021 [link]
"In her letter to the NLRB, she said Apple’s employee relations department “intimidated me not to speak about my safety concerns”, that a manager advised she quit Apple and that she was subject to sexism and a “dramatically increased” workload. Matters escalated when she took her complaints to Apple’s Slack channels, specifically a 2,000-member forum for female software engineers. She said she was flooded with supportive comments and similar stories of workplace harassment — but she had since been banned from using Slack as part of her administrative leave." [link]
Unlawful Employee Policies (Merit Found ✓ ✓)
- Charges: 32-CA-284428 & 32-CA-284441
- MERIT FOUND: JAN 30 2023 [article link] [video LINK]
- MEMOS/COMPLAINTS:
- EMPLOYEE POLICies memo (VIEW)
- Tim Cook MEMO (VIEW)
- SURVEILLANCE (VIEW 1; 2 is not posted)
|
|
"Apple Executives Violated Worker Rights, Labor Officials Say," Bloomberg, January 30 2023 [link]
"The NLRB general counsel’s office has determined that 'various work rules, handbook rules, and confidentiality rules' imposed by the tech giant 'tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees' from exercising their rights to collective action, spokesperson Kayla Blado said Monday. In addition, she said, the agency 'found merit to a charge alleging statements and conduct by Apple — including high-level executives — also violated the National Labor Relations Act.' Gjovik cited policies restricting staff from disclosing 'business information,' talking to reporters, revealing co-workers’ compensation or posting impolite tweets. Gjovik cited policies restricting staff from disclosing 'business information,' talking to reporters, revealing co-workers’ compensation or posting impolite tweets." [link]
"Apple has infringed on worker rights, NLRB investigators say," CNN, January 31 2023 [link]
"As part of the investigation an NLRB regional office had 'found merit to a charge alleging statements and conduct by Apple — including high-level executives — also violated the National Labor Relations Act.' The former employee who cited the Cook email in her charges, Ashley Gjovik, told CNN she does not intend to accept any settlement offer from Apple because she hopes to force the company to acknowledge it violated labor law and to amend the policies it applies to its workforce. 'They don’t just have a feeling of impunity — they actually have it with these policies,' Gjovik said, pointing to multiple confidentiality clauses in Apple’s employee handbook that she said allows Apple to bully and intimidate workers into silence about workplace retaliation. 'I want to go to the heart of the issues I saw.'" [link]
"Labor officials found that Apple execs infringed on workers’ rights," Tech Crunch, January 31 2023 [link]
"The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found merit to complaints that high-level executives at Apple violated national labor law. These charges were filed by Ashley Gjøvik, a former senior engineer program manager at Apple. In an email to TechCrunch, Gjøvik explained that Apple employment policies 'coercively silence Apple employees and chill them from engaging in protected activity through over-broad and vague terms, as well as through an implication of constant surveillance.' Gjøvik submitted a number of documents as part of her NLRB complaint, including an email from CEO Tim Cook. A representative from the NLRB told TechCrunch that work rules, handbook rules and confidentiality rules at Apple 'tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to protected concerted activity,' according to these findings."
Gjøvik was fired by Apple in September 2021 for leaking confidential information; she told TechCrunch that she thinks she was fired in retaliation after reporting to the EPA that her office was built on the 'Triple Site' of toxic waste in Silicon Valley, where cracks in the floor exposed employees to carcinogenic fumes. The NLRB has not yet made a decision regarding Gjøvik’s complaints that she was illegally fired in retaliation for speaking out about work conditions." [link]
"Watchdog: There just may be something in these claims Apple broke labor laws," The Register, Feb 1 2023 [link]
"Ashley Gjovik, who filed the claims relating to unsafe work conditions, has documented her case against Apple extensively and has been vocal on Twitter about the progress of her challenge to the Mac-maker's workplace practices. Gjovik's case stems from her work at an Apple office in Sunnyvale, California, that had been built on an apparently contaminated site, exposure to which caused her adverse health effects. Gjovik claims that Apple fought her efforts to address safety concerns, and then to report the site to the NLRB and the Environmental Protection Agency, ultimately resulting in her being placed on leave and fired.
In October of last year, Gjovik filed a new claim with the NLRB related to an all-staff email sent by Apple CEO Tim Cook to employees in September in which he said "people who leak confidential information do not belong here". That missive stated Apple was doing everything in its power to determine who had leaked such information. Gjovik said Apple's justification for her firing that same month was related to her violating disclosure policies of the kind Cook complained about, though she maintains the firing was related to her reporting of the contamination issues to the US government."
"Apple CEO’s Anti-Leak Edict Broke Law, Ex-Employee Alleges," Bloomberg, October 12 2021 [link]
"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]
"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]
"Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions," Truthout, Dec 19 2021 [link]
"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]
"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]
"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]
"In the Summer, Three Workplace Activists Were Making Waves at Apple. All Three Are Now Gone," Slate, Nov 23 2021 [link]
"Using IP leak investigations as a way to discourage people from speaking out against workplace issues should technically violate labor laws, though such laws have toothless protections for whistleblowers and are subject to interpretation by whomever is in charge of the NLRB at any given time. According to organizers, by conflating IP leaks with workplace whistleblowing, Apple can better enforce a culture of secrecy. As evidence they point to a memo that CEO Tim Cook released in September stating “people who leak confidential information do not belong” at Apple, which referred to both product information and details of all-hands meetings. Gjøvik used this memo as evidence in a NLRB complaint she filed in October, which alleges that the company’s tendency to equate whistleblowing and activism with leaking violates labor protections. “Someone needs to intervene,” she said. “If we can get the NLRB to send something to Apple employees saying they do have rights … that’s a first step.” [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]
"Last month, Ashley Gjovik was fired from her senior program manager position at Apple. Now, she's just completed midterms during her final year of law school. As she studied for her labor law exam, Gjovik told Insider that she noticed the "unlawful examples" mentioned in her textbook were "nearly identical to terms in Apple's employee policies." Gjovik said that led her to file complaints with the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday in which she alleges that Apple's anti-leaking stance and strict employee handbook violates US labor laws."
Gjovik emphasized that while there are IP laws protecting a company's confidential product information, limiting discussion about employee meetings potentially prevents workers from communicating about workplace concerns, a right protected by the NLRB. "This seems like one of the most fundamental changes that need to happen to enable workplace and employee organizing at Apple," Gjovik said. "If people are terrified that they can't talk to each other about work conditions or talk to a labor lawyer about work conditions - a union couldn't even begin to organize."
"The NLRB general counsel’s office has determined that 'various work rules, handbook rules, and confidentiality rules' imposed by the tech giant 'tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees' from exercising their rights to collective action, spokesperson Kayla Blado said Monday. In addition, she said, the agency 'found merit to a charge alleging statements and conduct by Apple — including high-level executives — also violated the National Labor Relations Act.' Gjovik cited policies restricting staff from disclosing 'business information,' talking to reporters, revealing co-workers’ compensation or posting impolite tweets. Gjovik cited policies restricting staff from disclosing 'business information,' talking to reporters, revealing co-workers’ compensation or posting impolite tweets." [link]
"Apple has infringed on worker rights, NLRB investigators say," CNN, January 31 2023 [link]
"As part of the investigation an NLRB regional office had 'found merit to a charge alleging statements and conduct by Apple — including high-level executives — also violated the National Labor Relations Act.' The former employee who cited the Cook email in her charges, Ashley Gjovik, told CNN she does not intend to accept any settlement offer from Apple because she hopes to force the company to acknowledge it violated labor law and to amend the policies it applies to its workforce. 'They don’t just have a feeling of impunity — they actually have it with these policies,' Gjovik said, pointing to multiple confidentiality clauses in Apple’s employee handbook that she said allows Apple to bully and intimidate workers into silence about workplace retaliation. 'I want to go to the heart of the issues I saw.'" [link]
"Labor officials found that Apple execs infringed on workers’ rights," Tech Crunch, January 31 2023 [link]
"The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found merit to complaints that high-level executives at Apple violated national labor law. These charges were filed by Ashley Gjøvik, a former senior engineer program manager at Apple. In an email to TechCrunch, Gjøvik explained that Apple employment policies 'coercively silence Apple employees and chill them from engaging in protected activity through over-broad and vague terms, as well as through an implication of constant surveillance.' Gjøvik submitted a number of documents as part of her NLRB complaint, including an email from CEO Tim Cook. A representative from the NLRB told TechCrunch that work rules, handbook rules and confidentiality rules at Apple 'tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to protected concerted activity,' according to these findings."
Gjøvik was fired by Apple in September 2021 for leaking confidential information; she told TechCrunch that she thinks she was fired in retaliation after reporting to the EPA that her office was built on the 'Triple Site' of toxic waste in Silicon Valley, where cracks in the floor exposed employees to carcinogenic fumes. The NLRB has not yet made a decision regarding Gjøvik’s complaints that she was illegally fired in retaliation for speaking out about work conditions." [link]
"Watchdog: There just may be something in these claims Apple broke labor laws," The Register, Feb 1 2023 [link]
"Ashley Gjovik, who filed the claims relating to unsafe work conditions, has documented her case against Apple extensively and has been vocal on Twitter about the progress of her challenge to the Mac-maker's workplace practices. Gjovik's case stems from her work at an Apple office in Sunnyvale, California, that had been built on an apparently contaminated site, exposure to which caused her adverse health effects. Gjovik claims that Apple fought her efforts to address safety concerns, and then to report the site to the NLRB and the Environmental Protection Agency, ultimately resulting in her being placed on leave and fired.
In October of last year, Gjovik filed a new claim with the NLRB related to an all-staff email sent by Apple CEO Tim Cook to employees in September in which he said "people who leak confidential information do not belong here". That missive stated Apple was doing everything in its power to determine who had leaked such information. Gjovik said Apple's justification for her firing that same month was related to her violating disclosure policies of the kind Cook complained about, though she maintains the firing was related to her reporting of the contamination issues to the US government."
"Apple CEO’s Anti-Leak Edict Broke Law, Ex-Employee Alleges," Bloomberg, October 12 2021 [link]
"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]
"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]
"Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions," Truthout, Dec 19 2021 [link]
"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]
"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]
"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]
"In the Summer, Three Workplace Activists Were Making Waves at Apple. All Three Are Now Gone," Slate, Nov 23 2021 [link]
"Using IP leak investigations as a way to discourage people from speaking out against workplace issues should technically violate labor laws, though such laws have toothless protections for whistleblowers and are subject to interpretation by whomever is in charge of the NLRB at any given time. According to organizers, by conflating IP leaks with workplace whistleblowing, Apple can better enforce a culture of secrecy. As evidence they point to a memo that CEO Tim Cook released in September stating “people who leak confidential information do not belong” at Apple, which referred to both product information and details of all-hands meetings. Gjøvik used this memo as evidence in a NLRB complaint she filed in October, which alleges that the company’s tendency to equate whistleblowing and activism with leaking violates labor protections. “Someone needs to intervene,” she said. “If we can get the NLRB to send something to Apple employees saying they do have rights … that’s a first step.” [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]
"Last month, Ashley Gjovik was fired from her senior program manager position at Apple. Now, she's just completed midterms during her final year of law school. As she studied for her labor law exam, Gjovik told Insider that she noticed the "unlawful examples" mentioned in her textbook were "nearly identical to terms in Apple's employee policies." Gjovik said that led her to file complaints with the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday in which she alleges that Apple's anti-leaking stance and strict employee handbook violates US labor laws."
Gjovik emphasized that while there are IP laws protecting a company's confidential product information, limiting discussion about employee meetings potentially prevents workers from communicating about workplace concerns, a right protected by the NLRB. "This seems like one of the most fundamental changes that need to happen to enable workplace and employee organizing at Apple," Gjovik said. "If people are terrified that they can't talk to each other about work conditions or talk to a labor lawyer about work conditions - a union couldn't even begin to organize."
U.S. Department of Labor
Whistleblower Protection Program
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc.
- U.S. Dept of Labor: CERCLA, SOX, & OSHA whistleblower retaliation
- U.S. Dept of Labor OIG: corruption in region IX (article)
Case: Apple Inc/Gjovik/9-3290-22-051
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9610
"Gjovik’s specific complaints against Apple date back to mid-March, when she cited unsafe working conditions related to “chemical exposure” at her Apple office in Sunnyvale, California, where more than 100 employees are based. Her office, known as “Stewart 1” within Apple, is located on what the Environmental Protection Agency refers to as the “TRW Microwave Superfund site”, a location requiring special oversight owing to previous contamination by hazardous waste materials in the soil and groundwater beneath the building. Gjovik said her concerns were brushed aside and she was warned against speaking up about them. [link]
- ✔ I made an internal complaint to the employer related to an Environmental Statute - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
- ✔ I provided information to or filed a complaint with a federal, state, or local agency or gov entity related to an Env statute - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
"Gjovik’s specific complaints against Apple date back to mid-March, when she cited unsafe working conditions related to “chemical exposure” at her Apple office in Sunnyvale, California, where more than 100 employees are based. Her office, known as “Stewart 1” within Apple, is located on what the Environmental Protection Agency refers to as the “TRW Microwave Superfund site”, a location requiring special oversight owing to previous contamination by hazardous waste materials in the soil and groundwater beneath the building. Gjovik said her concerns were brushed aside and she was warned against speaking up about them. [link]
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), 18 U.S.C.A. §1514A
"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]
"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]
"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]
"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]
"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]
- ✔ I provided information to a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency that I reasonably believed violates SEC rules/regulations; or any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
- ✔ I provided information to a supervisor (or another person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate/discover/terminate misconduct) regarding conduct that I reasonably believe violates SEC rules/regulations; or any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
"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]
"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]
"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]
"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]
"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]
Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. §660
"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]
- ✔ I filed an occupational safety or health complaint with OSHA or another agency - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
- ✔ I filed an occupational safety or health complaint with management - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
- ✔ I exercised rights afforded by the OSH Act - my employer knew this and then I faced retaliation
- ✔ I communicated orally or in writing with a supervisor or other management personnel about occupational safety or health matters, including reporting by managers or others with occupational safety or health responsibilities as part of their duties;
- ✔ I asked occupational safety or health questions and expressing concerns about these matters;
- ✔ I reported a work-related fatality, injury, or illness;
- ✔ I requesting access to records, copies of the OSH Act, OSHA regulations, applicable OSHA standards, or plans for compliance
"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]
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Conflict of Interest & Fraud
- U.S. SEC: corruption, fraud, conflicts of interest
- U.S. SEC: unlawful employee policies & fraudulent statements
- U.S. SEC & Treasury: failure to follow U.S. sanctions laws; FCPA complaint
- Whistleblower tip: 16304-612-987-465, 31 Aug 2021
"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]
Confidentiality Agreements Fraud & Misrepresentation
- whistleblower tip: 16353-506-600-213, 27 Oct 2021
"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]
"Apple used NDAs against workers and ‘straight out lied’ about it, claims report," 9to5Mac.com, Feb 7 2021 [link]
"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 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]
"Apple used NDAs against workers and ‘straight out lied’ about it, claims report," 9to5Mac.com, Feb 7 2021 [link]
"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]
California Department of Labor Cases
Department of Industrial Relations, Retaliation
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
- Activity Around COVID-19 Exposure [§232.5, §1102.5, §6310]
- Activity Around COVID-19 Vaccine Hoarding [§232.5, §1102.5, §6310]
- Activity Around Ethylbenzene & Toluene Concerns [§232.5, §1102.5, §6310]
- Reporting Workplace Injuries [§232.5, §1102.5, §6310]
- Reporting Health & Safety Issues [§232.5, §1102.5, §6310]
Retaliation & Policy Charge: RCI-CM-842830
California Labor Code §232.5
- ✓ Retaliation due to disclosing work conditions in violation of §232.5(c)
- ✓ Employer rules & contracts prohibiting disclosure of work conditions in violation of §232.5(a) & §232.5(b)
California Labor Code §6310
- ✓ Retaliation for making complaints to government agencies about health & safety issues in violation of §6310(a)(1)
- ✓ Retaliation due to reporting work-related injury of illness in violation of §6310(a)(4)
- ✓ Retaliation for complaining about a violation of §6399 in violation of §6310
California Labor Code §1102.5
- ✓ Retaliation due to disclosing information to a government & law enforcement agency in violation of §1102.5(b)
- ✓ Employer rules prohibiting disclosure of information to a government & law enforcement agency in violation of §1102.5(a)
California Labor Code §6399; Code of Regulations 5194
- ✓ Failure to comply with Prop 65 requirements in violation of §5194(b)(6)
- ✓ Omission of 10x §339 hazardous chemicals from §5194(b)(6) in violation Labor Code §6360-6399.7 & Code of Regulations Title 8 §5194
- ✓ Prohibiting employees from observing and monitoring and measure employee exposure to hazards pursuant to §142.3 (effectively determining “whether the heath of such employee is adversely affected by this exposure”) in violation of §6408(c)
- ✓ Failure to provide access to employees to accurate records of employee exposures to potentially toxic materials or harmful physical agents in violation of §6408(d)
- ✓ Failure to notify employees who has been or who is being exposed to toxic materials or harmful physical agents and informing any employee so exposed of corrective action being taken in violation of §6408(d)
U.S. EEOC & CA DEFH - Charges
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc., no investigation requested; Right to Sue Notice granted
Press:
- Charges: discrimination based on sex & disability; retaliation for filing charge
- incorporates U.S. DOJ Civil Rights (98145-RJH)
Press:
- "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]
Generally: Retaliation in this Matter
- Hostile Work Environment & Failure to Resolve HWE
- Constructive Termination
- Increase in Unfavorable Work
- Reduction in Favorable Projects
- Significantly Increased Workload
- Exclusion from Meetings, Projects, & Emails
- Indefinite Administrative Leave / Suspension
- Denial of Prescheduled Training
- Suspension of Account Access
- Defamation by Publication
- Termination
- Defamation & Trade Libel by Reason of Termination
- Post-Employment Harassment, Ostracization, Shunning, Denylisting
- Threats & Coercement to Drop Charges/Cases
- Threats of Violence, Litigation, Bankrupcy, & further Retaliation
- Threats against Friends & Supporters
- Mailed a Threatening Packing
- Home Address Posted Online
- Defamation Per Se by Accusations of Criminal Activity
- Retaliatory Litigation
- Retaliatory Reports to Law Enforcement (Local & Federal)
- Retaliatory Reports of Social Media Posts & Uploads about Cases & Legal Filings
- Retaliatory Reports & Complaints to Law School
- Unlawful Gag Order
- Retaliatory Banishment from Resources & Associations
- Denial of Unemployment Benefits
- Home Break-Ins, Surveillance, Stalking
Generally: Evidence of Pretext
Temporal Proximity: A close temporal proximity exists between the protected activities and adverse actions
Disparate treatment: of complainant as compared to other employees following the protected activity.
Indicators that respondent’s stated reasons for the adverse action are pretext.
Hostility: Evidence of hostility towards the protected activity
- Apple terminated me days/weeks following protected activity, thus temporal proximity is enough to solely substantiate causation
Disparate treatment: of complainant as compared to other employees following the protected activity.
- Apple did not follow its own termination policies & process
- Others were not terminated for the same actions; others were not terminated for far worse actions
Indicators that respondent’s stated reasons for the adverse action are pretext.
- Reasons proffered do not explain the other retaliation against me from March 2021-August 2021 (hostile work environment, constructive termination, reassigning of projects, increase in workload, assignment of unfavorable projects, etc)
- My Sept 9 termination freed Apple from having to respond to my discrimination and retaliation complaints, workplace safety complaints, vapor intrusion testing results, or provide her annual performance review (the next week)
Hostility: Evidence of hostility towards the protected activity
- Apple’s online harassment cited my protected activity as the reason for termination & retaliation
- Before she was fired, Apple repeatedly told me not to speak with coworkers about her concerns about safety, labor, or retaliation
Generally: Apple’s Proffered Reason for Termination
See: Sept 9 Termination Transcript
Nonsense, Generally
Tweet About Employee Ear Canal Scans / Ear Biometrics
Face “Gobbler” App
Failure to Cooperate with Investigation
Nonsense, Generally
- Apple terminated me days/weeks following protected activity, thus temporal proximity is enough to solely substantiate causation
- Reasons proffered by Apple do not explain the other retaliation from March 2021-August 2021 (hostile work environment, constructive termination, reassigning of projects, increase in workload, assignment of unfavorable projects, etc)
- My Sept 9 termination freed Apple from having to respond to my discrimination and retaliation complaints, workplace safety complaints, vapor intrusion testing results, or provide my annual performance review (the next week)
- Apple did not follow its own termination policies & process
- Termination was in Breach of Anti-Retaliation Policy & Breach of Board of Directors Whistleblower Policy
- Apple’s online harassment cited my protected activity as the reason for termination & retaliation
- I was no longer an "at will" employee (see Banko v Apple)
Tweet About Employee Ear Canal Scans / Ear Biometrics
- Nonsense Substantively:
- Even though this tweet is pretext, this tweet was protected activity itself thus Apple admitted to retaliatory animus
- No Intellectual Property was shared
- No unknown information was shared. Information shared was already made public by Apple, years prior
- Post was protected opposition activity
- Privacy is a fundamental, constitutional right in California and employees are protected when declining/opposing invasions of privacy
- There was no informed consent due to public policy & coercion
- I already said “no” in 2018
- Nonsense Contextually/Procedurally:
- Apple did not contact me about it for 12 days, & investigation would not require that long
- Apple has not fired the people who previously spoke publicly about the ear scanning and/or user studies
Face “Gobbler” App
- Nonsense Substantively:
- Even though this tweet/article is pretext, this tweet was protected activity itself thus Apple admitted to retaliatory animus
- No Intellectual Property was shared
- Posts were protected opposition activity
- Information shared was already made public by an Apple manager responsible for “Gobbler”, years prior
- Privacy is a fundamental, constitutional right in California
- The Gobbler application violates California laws, federal laws, & international laws
- There was no informed consent due to public policy & coercion
- Nonsense Contextually/Procedurally:
- Apple did not contact me about it for 10 days
- Apple's harassing legal email on Sept 15 protested my Protected Concerted Activity & my complaints of criminal activity by Apple
- Business Conduct complaint filed by [redacted] on Sept 15 was only hours before Apple’s lawyers emailed me, not allowing time for investigation & smells of pretext
- Apple did not fire the people who “leaked” Face ID in 2017
- Apple did not fire the Gobbler engineering manager posting publicly about Gobbler studies for years
- As for the Sept 15 Business Conduct complaint - after acquired evidence may mitigate damages, not culpability
Failure to Cooperate with Investigation
- Nonsense Substantively:
- There was no refusal to cooperate - I agreed to cooperate (Sept 9 Termination Transcript)
- Interrogator had no justification for requiring conversation “within the hour” about supposed conduct that occurred 12 days prior
- Nonsense Contextually/Procedurally:
- No warnings were given before termination
- No explanation was given for the contact that day
- Employee Relations contacted me after the posts in question and from Aug 28 through Sept 8, Apple didn’t mention anything about Gobbler or ear scans, & instead Apple continued to pretend they were investigating my concerns
Privacy Complaints
- California AG: violation of California privacy laws
- European Commission, European Data Protection Supervisor: unlawful employer privacy & data collection policies & practices
- UK Data Protection Information Commissioner's Office (ICO): unlawful employer privacy & data collection policies & practices
- Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL): unlawful employer privacy & data collection policies & practices
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC): unlawful employer privacy & data collection policies & practices
- Data Protection Commission (Ireland): unlawful employer privacy & data collection policies & practices
|
|
U.S. EPA - Complaints
Complaint: No ID, 29 AUG 2021
Environmental Violations
- Complaint re: Apple & the TRW Microwave Superfund site (Aug 29 2021)
U.S. EPA OIG
- CERCLA non-compliance, conflicts of interest (article)
California EPA & OSHA - Complaints
- CA Department of Labor, DIR Retaliation: labor law violations, unlawful policies, Prop 65 whistleblower
- CalEPA: environmental violations; expired land use covenant
- CalOSHA: labor law violation & unsafe work conditions (#160-1855100)
Environmental Complaint
complaint: COMP-51794, 30 AUG 2021
Witness Intimidation
Federal & California
California
Washington state Litigation
- U.S. DOJ FBI: federal witness intimidation, harassment, & tampering; threats & intimidation; mailing threatening communications; unlawful surveillance, wire tapping, & hacking [18 USC 1512, 1513, 1514; 18 USC 1505; 15 USC §78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii); 18 USC 371; 18 U.S. CODE § 876 ]
- Federal & state: witness intimidation & tampering, threats, coercion, retaliation, & harassment
- U.S. FTC & U.S. SEC: unlawful data collection & invasion of privacy
California
- Santa Clara PD & DA: repeated attempted & successful home break-ins, installation of surveillance equipment (May 26 2022, May 31 2022, August 9 2022).
Washington state Litigation
- Retaliatory lawsuit & gag order coming out of Seattle, Washington in Feb/March 2022 from prior-Apple Global Security employee; I won the appeal September 2022
- I sued the entire state of Washington in federal district court over their unconstitutional laws that allowed the lawsuit & order above
The Apple Office: The "TRW Microwave" Superfund Site
| US Dept of Labor - TRW Microwave Superfund - Overview Memo |
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.
EPA Websites:
Press Coverage:
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.
EPA Websites:
- US EPA TRW Microwave Site: www.epa.gov/superfund/trwmicrowave
- US EPA Triple Site: www.epa.gov/superfund/triplesite
- California Water Boards: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SL721251223
Press Coverage:
For more information on Superfund & other chemical clean up sites in Silicon Valley, see: https://www.whatsintheair.org/silicon-valley.html