Ashley's Apple Legal Battle
My Apple whistleblowing saga:
I only resorted to this because everything I tried internally failed
I only resorted to this because everything I tried internally failed
"Docket" of Active Cases & Issues
|
|
U.S. District Court
Civil Lawsuit: Toxic Torts & Whistleblower Retaliation
Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 23-cv-04597-EMC, N.D. Cal., 2023-
Full Gjovik v Apple Inc., US District Court docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc
Filed: September 7 2023. Part of this lawsuit is taking a private right of actions for agency claims previously filed to: California Dept. of Labor, U.S. EEOC, California DFEH (August 2021 - statute of limitations satisfied). The Tamney termination in violation of public policy claim also includes prior reports to the US EPA, California EPA, California OSHA, U.S. OSHA, U.S. NLRB, and U.S. Dept. of Justice. Apple Corporate Crime Update (9/9/23 Article).
March 3 2025 update: gjovik_v_apple_-_2025_03_03_update.pdf
Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 24-6058, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2024-)
Gjovik v Apple Inc, Ninth Circuit docket: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55372979/Gjovik_v_Apple_Inc
Ashley M. Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 25-2028, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2025-)
Gjovik v Apple Inc, Ninth Circuit docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69805803/gjovik-v-apple-inc/
Civil Claims
|
Tort of Private Nuisance
(§ 3479) |
Tort of Ultrahazardous Activities
(Strict Liability) |
|
Termination in Violation of Public Policy
(Tamney claim) |
California Whistleblower Protection Act
(§ 1102.5) |
Retaliation for Protected Safety Activities
(§ 6310) |
|
Retaliation for Complaining about Violations of the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act (§ 6399.7)
|
Retaliation for Discussing & Disclosing Work Conditions
(§ 232.5) |
|
Retaliation for Discussing Pay (§ 232)
|
Violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law (§ 17200) |
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
|
|
Retaliation for Exercising
Constitutional Rights outside of the Workplace (§ 96k) |
Retaliation for Filing
Labor Complaints (§ 98.6) |
|
Retaliation Due to
Crime Victim Status (§ 230 c & e) |
Retaliation due to Political Actions and Activity
(§§ 1101, 1102) |
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
|
Saved for later: RICO 1962(c) and 1962(d), The Bane Act, The Ralph Act
Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 23-cv-04597-EMC, 5th Amended Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2024).
| n.d.cal._3_23-cv-04597-emc_142_0.pdf |
Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 23-cv-04597-EMC, Decision & Order, (N.D. Cal. May. 20, 2024).
"Apple whistleblower Ashley Gjovik has filed a RICO Act lawsuit against the company, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for reporting safety concerns and for protesting Apple’s alleged privacy violations. The lawsuit, which was filed on September 7, 2023, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges a web of misconduct, including whistleblower retaliation, privacy violations, and even claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Gjovik, who was a senior engineering program manager at Apple, was fired in September 2021. She claims that she was fired after she raised concerns about Apple’s use of facial recognition technology in its products, and after she protested the company’s alleged practice of videotaping employees in bathrooms and locker rooms. Gjovik’s lawsuit also alleges that Apple violated her privacy by collecting and storing her personal data without her consent. She is seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages." [IT World]
"An Apple whistleblower has filed a RICO Act lawsuit against the company, in a bid to get the iPhone maker to answer accusations of retaliation against the former employee... The civil lawsuit was filed on Friday as Gjovik had "decided that if I had to face Apple in court anyways, and only had one real chance to go after Apple on everything they've done to me, that I better include it all - and I did." ... The filing was made on September 7, 2023, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint demands a jury trial." [AppleInsider]
"An Apple whistleblower has filed a RICO Act lawsuit against the company, in a bid to get the iPhone maker to answer accusations of retaliation against the former employee... The civil lawsuit was filed on Friday as Gjovik had "decided that if I had to face Apple in court anyways, and only had one real chance to go after Apple on everything they've done to me, that I better include it all - and I did." ... The filing was made on September 7, 2023, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint demands a jury trial." [AppleInsider]
U.S. National Labor Review Board (NLRB)
Unfair Labor Practices, Retaliation, & Wrongful Termination
Status: NLRB filed a complaint against Apple on Dec. 18 2024.
The case is tracked under:
The case is tracked under:
- August 26 2021 (32-CA-282142)
- September 16 2021 (32-CA-283161)
Read the Feb. 3 2025 open letter to NLRB General Counsel here:
| gjovik_v_apple_-_open_letter_to_nlrb_general_counsel_cowen_-_final.pdf |
The Dec. 18 2024 Complaint from NLRB:
| cpt.32-ca-282142.et_al._order_consolidating_cases_consolidated_cpt_and_noh.pdf |
The Jan. 2 2025 Answer from Apple:
| apple_-_32-ca-282142_283161_-_answer_to_complaint.pdf |
"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]
NLRB: Unlawful Policies & Practices
Email from Tim Cook to Apple Staff (32-CA-284441)
NLRB.gov page: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284441
Position Statement: October 12 2021 Memo
Statement in Support of Existing Decision of Merit: April 17 2023 Memo
Motion to Quash: April 14 2023 Memo
Position Statement: October 12 2021 Memo
Statement in Support of Existing Decision of Merit: April 17 2023 Memo
Motion to Quash: April 14 2023 Memo
Apple Employee Handbook (32-CA-284428)
Complaint & Notice of Hearing: Sept. 27 2024 Complaint
Settlement Agreement: April 3 2025 Agreement
NLRB.gov page: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284428
Position Statement: October 12 2021 Memo
Settlement Agreement: April 3 2025 Agreement
NLRB.gov page: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284428
Position Statement: October 12 2021 Memo
4/3/2025 - Settlement
| set.32-ca-284428.apple_set_ag_signed_certified.pdf |
| set.32-ca-284428.apple_-_charging_party_letter_and_joinder.pdf |
10/3/2024 - Corrected Complaint & Notice of Hearing
| cpt.32-ca-284428_corrected_complaint_and_notice_of_hearing_-_redacted_-_apple_inc.pdf |
10/17/2024 - Apple's Answer
Apple's Culture of Secrecy & Intimidation:
New York Times: Apple’s Obsession With Secrecy Grows Stronger (2009)
Fortune: This is how Apple keeps the secrets (2012)
The Verge: Tim Cook says employees who leak memos do not belong at Apple, according to leaked memo (2021)
The Verge: Apple cares about privacy, unless you work at Apple (2021)
Fast Company: Apple’s Obsession With Secrecy May Be A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (2017)
Business Insider:
TechMore: Apple
INSIDE APPLE: The "Cult Of Secrecy" Is So Pervasive They Paint Over Windows And Change Locks On Doors (2012)
Fortune: This is how Apple keeps the secrets (2012)
Bloomberg: What It’s Like to Work Inside Apple’s ‘Black Site’ (2019)
Bloomberg: Apple Warns Employees to Stop Leaking Information to Media (2018)
|
Gizmodo, Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks (2009)
EFF: Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware (2010)
The Outline: Leaked recording: Inside Apple’s global war on leakers (2017)
The Outline: “I have faith deep in my soul that if we hire smart people ... ultimately they’re gonna do the right thing, and that’s to keep their mouth shut.” (2017)
Business Insider: The Most Extreme Examples Of Secrecy At Apple (2013)
CNET: Apple's secrecy: It's baked into the walls
(2012)
Vox: How I survived and thrived in Apple's legendary environment of super-secrecy (2017)
Anil Dash, Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale (2009)
The Outline: Apple’s needless cult of secrecy (2017)
Business Insider: The culture at Apple is so secretive that some employees didn't know they were working on the first iPad until Steve Jobs unveiled it on stage (2015)
|
Charges: 32-CA-284441 & 32-CA-284428
|
|
"Apple Executives Violated Worker Rights, Labor Officials Say," Bloomberg, January 30 2023
"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."
"Apple has infringed on worker rights, NLRB investigators say," CNN, January 31 2023
"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.'"
"Labor officials found that Apple execs infringed on workers’ rights," Tech Crunch, January 31 2023
"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."
"Watchdog: There just may be something in these claims Apple broke labor laws," The Register, Feb 1 2023
"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
"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."
"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.”
"Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions," Truthout, Dec 19 2021
"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."
"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."
"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."
"In the Summer, Three Workplace Activists Were Making Waves at Apple. All Three Are Now Gone," Slate, Nov 23 2021
"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.”
"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
"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."
"Apple has infringed on worker rights, NLRB investigators say," CNN, January 31 2023
"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.'"
"Labor officials found that Apple execs infringed on workers’ rights," Tech Crunch, January 31 2023
"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."
"Watchdog: There just may be something in these claims Apple broke labor laws," The Register, Feb 1 2023
"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
"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."
"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.”
"Apple Employee Blows Whistle on Illegal Spying and Toxic Working Conditions," Truthout, Dec 19 2021
"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."
"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."
"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."
"In the Summer, Three Workplace Activists Were Making Waves at Apple. All Three Are Now Gone," Slate, Nov 23 2021
"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.”
"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
"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
Filed: August 29 2021 (OSHA severely delayed the process for over two years)
U.S. Dept. of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ)
OALJ Case: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-CER-00001.
Boston, Massachusetts District Office
Docketing notice (January 19 2024).
U.S. Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB)
ARB Case: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-0060.
OALJ Case: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-CER-00001.
Boston, Massachusetts District Office
Docketing notice (January 19 2024).
U.S. Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB)
ARB Case: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-0060.
|
Jan. 19 2024 Docketing Notice:
March 2024 Order Scheduling Hearing:
May 24 2024 Order Granting Leave to Amend:
Nov. 6 2024 Reply from Appellant
|
Proposed Amended Complaint:
Aug. 21 2024 Appeal to US DOL ARB:
Sept. 2024 Appellant Brief & Appendix:
| ||||||||||||||
"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]
U.S. EPA - Complaints
Environmental Violations:
- Complaint re: Apple & the TRW Microwave Superfund site (Aug 29 2021)
- Complaint re: Apple & the Secret Semiconductor Manufacturing Plant (June 12 2023)
The Secret Silicon Fabrication Factory Next to Ashley's Apartment
Start in 2015, Apple's apparently been operating a secret semiconductor manufacturing plant venting an incredible amount of solvent fumes and toxic gases directly into the exterior air outside the windows of thousands of apartment windows.
More: Apple's Secret Silicon Fab
Location: 3250 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, California
More: Apple's Secret Silicon Fab
Location: 3250 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, California
Ashley's 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.
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.
More: The TRW Microwave Superfund
Location: 825 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale, California
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.
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.
More: The TRW Microwave Superfund
Location: 825 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale, California
EPA Websites:
Press Coverage:
- KQED: "Silicon Valley's Toxic Past Haunts Sunnyvale Neighborhood," 2017
- 408, "1, 2, and 3 of 23: The Triple Site," 2019
- The Atlantic: "Not Even Silicon Valley Escapes History," 2013
For more information on chemical clean-up sites in Silicon Valley, see: What's in the Air?
California EPA & OSHA - Complaints
These claims are now part of the pending Gjovik v Apple civil lawsuit.
- CA Department of Labor, DIR Retaliation: labor law violations, unlawful policies, Prop 65 whistleblower
- CalEPA: environmental violations (COMP-51794, 30 AUG 2021)
- CalOSHA: labor law violations & unsafe work conditions (#160-1855100)
California Department of Labor Cases
Department of Industrial Relations, Retaliation: RCI-CM-842830
Update: The California Department of Labor case has been removed to District Court for a civil lawsuit as the department has not even started investigating.
See: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division.
- 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]
Update: The California Department of Labor case has been removed to District Court for a civil lawsuit as the department has not even started investigating.
See: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division.
California Labor Code §6310
California Labor Code §232.5
California Labor Code §1102.5
|
California Labor Code §6399; Code of Regulations 5194
|
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."
- ✔ 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."
Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs
- U.S. Department of Labor: OSH Act whistleblower retaliation (Apple Inc/Gjovik/9-3290-22-051)
- Sign the US DOL Anti-Corruption Petition
- U.S. Department of Labor OIG: corruption in region IX
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. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Update: The SOX charge was "kicked out" to District Court and the civil lawsuit.
See: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division.
"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”.
"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."
"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.”
See: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division.
"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”.
"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."
"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.”
Conflict of Interest & Fraud
Whistleblower tip: 16304-612-987-465, 31 Aug 2021
- 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
Confidentiality Agreements Fraud & Misrepresentation
- Whistleblower tip: 16353-506-600-213, 26 Oct 2021
- Oct 26 2021 NDA memo
"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]
"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 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]
Witness Intimidation & Harassment
Federal
California
Washington state Litigation
- RICO Act claims in Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC.
- 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 ].
- U.S. FTC & U.S. SEC: unlawful data collection & invasion of privacy
California
- Bane and Ralph Act claims in Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC.
- 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
- A meritless and retaliatory lawsuit was filed against me in February 2022, and a chilling gag order was unlawfully granted against me from March 2022 through December 2022. The state court was based in Seattle, Washington and the lawsuit was filed by an Apple Global Security ("Worldwide Loyalty") employee claiming it was filed because I filed an NLRB charge against Apple and openly admitting I had not initiated contact the petitioner since September 2021 (over four months prior). I won the appeal in September 2022, the opposing party did not attempt to appeal the decision in my favor, and the order was vacated and district court case formally dismissed as meritless in December of 2022.
- The appellate case I won pro se was then cited in a Supreme Court of the United States Amicus brief in December 2022, detailing this gag-order lawsuit against me as political persecution and warning SCOTUS to not allow vague and over broad state laws like what I was subject to in the state of Washington, as these statutes can enable judges to attempt to criminalize protected speech and unlawfully restrict freedom of expression.
- Prior to winning the state appeal, in June 2022 I had also sued the entire state of Washington in federal district court over several unconstitutional statutes that were used against me and allowed the lawsuit and order. I argued the statutes were facially unlawful and a violation of a number of sections of the US Constitution. My facial attack was dismissed on temporal and jurisdictional grounds with federalism concerns as the state appeal was still pending.
California Unemployment Insurance
California State
The ALJ wrote in the decision:
"Prior to the filing of the claim for benefits the claimant last work in September of 2021 as a senior engineering program manager at a salary of $169,000 per year. She worked approximately six and a half years for the employer.
The claimant received notice from the vice president that she was being discharged. The notice was vague and incomplete and stated that the claimant had disclosed confidential information and had not fully participated in some investigation. Although the claimant requested specific information from the employer, no specific information was provided.
Prior to the separation of the employment the claimant received great performance reviews and prior to the separation the claimant received no oral or written warning notifying her that job was in jeopardy. At all times the claimant performed her job duties to the best of her ability.....
In this matter the evidence shows that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with the most recent work. Since the claimant performed her job duties to the best of her ability and had not received warnings putting her on notice that her job was in jeopardy, the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and she is qualified for benefits under section 1256."
"Prior to the filing of the claim for benefits the claimant last work in September of 2021 as a senior engineering program manager at a salary of $169,000 per year. She worked approximately six and a half years for the employer.
The claimant received notice from the vice president that she was being discharged. The notice was vague and incomplete and stated that the claimant had disclosed confidential information and had not fully participated in some investigation. Although the claimant requested specific information from the employer, no specific information was provided.
Prior to the separation of the employment the claimant received great performance reviews and prior to the separation the claimant received no oral or written warning notifying her that job was in jeopardy. At all times the claimant performed her job duties to the best of her ability.....
In this matter the evidence shows that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with the most recent work. Since the claimant performed her job duties to the best of her ability and had not received warnings putting her on notice that her job was in jeopardy, the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and she is qualified for benefits under section 1256."
U.S. EEOC & CA DEFH - Charges
Update: Now a Tamney and § 1102.5 Claim in Civil Court
See: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division.
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc., no investigation requested; Right to Sue Notice granted
Press:
See: Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division.
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc., no investigation requested; Right to Sue Notice granted
- 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]