|
On April 27, 2026, I filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., City of Santa Clara, Jenab et al., Case No. 25-cv-07360-PCP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The hearing is set for June 4, 2026 at 10:00 AM, before Judge P. Casey Pitts in Courtroom 8 — 4th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA. The hearing is open to the public.
The motion asks the Court to order all hazardous waste, hazardous materials, and toxic gases removed from Apple's semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Boulevard within 30 days, to prohibit resumption of hazardous use during the case, and to prohibit the property owner from re-leasing the site to any operator for hazardous use above CalARP, RMP, or Toxic Gas Ordinance threshold quantities. Apple may continue to occupy the building for office or non-industrial use. The relief targets the chemicals — not the building. The full filings:
Since I served the sixty-day notice in June 2025 and filed my Opposition to the City's motion to dismiss in October 2025, the record has only gotten worse for the Defendants. In October 2025, EPA issued a Consent Agreement and Final Order documenting seven RCRA counts. The underlying April 2024 EPA Inspection Report identified 19 Potential Violations — 14 of which were still outstanding when EPA issued its Notice of Violation. Six BAAQMD air-pollution violations remain Pending as of April 26, 2026 — sixteen months after BAAQMD cited them. Santa Clara County's post-Bhopal Toxic Gas Ordinance permitting regime, which exists specifically to prevent catastrophes at facilities like this one, has zero records for this site. Apple's own sworn 2024 throughput report — signed under penalty of law by Apple's EHS Lead in February 2025 — confirms permit-cap exceedances of arsine at 84% over, phosphine at 61% over, and boron trichloride at 824% over. In September 2025, I offered all three Defendants a comprehensive menu of stipulated interim mitigation — air and sewer monitoring with auto-shutoff alarms, public warning signage, basic operator-identification signage (the building bears no public sign identifying Apple as the operator), completion of unfiled hazardous-substance permits, independent professional-engineer assessments, monthly compliance reporting. None of it required admission of liability. All three Defendants refused every measure and offered no counter-proposal. The engineers said it in writingThe most important document in the motion is Apple's own. In its September 2020 Process Hazard Analysis Revalidation, Apple's retained consultant identified specific failure modes — toxic gas leak, fire, explosion, sabotage, truck fire — and assigned to each consequence column the same phrase: "personnel exposure resulting in injury and/or fatality (site personnel or neighbors)." That phrase appears across at least eleven distinct nodes in the document, covering arsine, phosphine, chlorine, ammonia, diborane, silane, and the pyrophoric organometallics like trimethylaluminum and diethyl zinc — chemicals that ignite violently in air or water. Apple's own RMP*Comp dispersion modeling places its arsine worst-case toxic endpoint at 1.1 miles. Inside that envelope: 5,343 residents (a number that excludes the apartment complex across the lot line, which Apple just left out of the count), 1,787 housing units, an amusement park, a college, places of worship, the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, VTA Light Rail, and Highway 101. The Santa Clara Fire Department — the CalARP Administering Agency that received the modeling — has formally written that Apple's plume models are "not favorable for this area" and on June 17, 2025 withheld approval of an adjacent 166-unit residential project pending environmental review. The Granada Islamic School, with up to 900 pre-K through 8th-grade students, sits inside the arsine plume. In a chemical emergency, the school's Shelter-in-Place plan directs the children to evacuate to Meadow Park — directly across the street from the facility. The evacuation route runs the children toward the source. The failure modes Apple's engineers predicted have already materialized. Between June 2016 and May 2024, there were at least eleven toxic gas incidents at the facility, including:
Five chemical-release events in the past three years alone. Santa Clara has been withholding additional incident records since May 2024. Apple's facility sits directly on top of a pressurized artesian aquifer at about 35 feet below grade. Documented head pressure has been increasing since 1988 — a Honeywell monitoring well next door went from 19 feet depth-to-water in 1988 to zero by 1995, with water rising 100 feet up the well shaft. The 2015 Geotechnical Investigation for the apartment site documented four pressurized springs with measured pressure sufficient to drive the water column 10 to 13 feet above grade if uncapped. Apple stores silane, dichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, trimethylaluminum, diethyl zinc, and 49% hydrofluoric acid — chemicals that ignite or react violently with water — directly above this system. The geotechnical engineers' only mitigation recommendation was, essentially, don't dig down into it. Apple has known about the increasing aquifer pressure since 2015 and has done nothing. The City has been here before. The Sixth District Court of Appeal held in LSI Logic Corp. v. City of Santa Clara (1995) that the City of Santa Clara was unlawfully negligent for approving sensitive receptors next to chip fabs, and rejected the City's "shelter-in-place safe room" mitigation as inadequate. Current Mayor Lisa Gillmor was on the City Council at the time. The City was on direct, judicially-noticeable notice — thirty years ago — that doing this in this very City violated the duty owed to the surrounding community. The City did it again here, concealed Apple's CalARP-regulated status from the 2015 EIR, and continues to conceal the danger. Apple is also judicially estopped. In my prior personal-injury case before this same District (3:23-cv-04597), Apple won a statute-of-limitations dismissal on the position that, on notice that Apple was operating a semiconductor manufacturing plant at this address, I and any other victims should have immediately suspected the facility as the cause of severe chemical injuries. Apple cannot now turn around and tell this Court the same facility presents no extraordinary risk to anyone living next door. The fab is either ultrahazardous activity or it isn't. What I'm asking forThe motion asks the Court for what the Defendants would not agree to voluntarily:
What comes nextI'll post updates here as briefing develops. Apple, the City, and the property owner have their oppositions due in the coming weeks; my reply follows. If you want to support the case, you can sign the Change.org petition and share it. The community right next door has been kept in the dark about this for nearly a decade, and the people inside the 1.1-mile arsine plume — the residents, the children at the playground across the street, the 900 schoolkids whose evacuation route goes toward the source, the worshippers at the Family Prayer House nursery, the urgent care patients, the workers who have already been hospitalized — deserve to know. The chemicals at this facility can kill thousands of people in minutes if released. Apple's own engineers admitted that in writing under penalty. It's time for the chemicals to come out. -Ashley
0 Comments
On April 24, 2026, I filed my Motion for Summary Judgment and Preliminary Injunction in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The hearing is set for June 11, 2026 at 1:30 PM before the Honorable Edward M. Chen in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse. The hearing is open to the public — come watch.
The full filings:
(Quick refresher on what summary judgment is, since I walked through this back in January: the Court can decide substantive issues — or the whole case — before trial when there is no dispute of fact. That's usually because the parties agree on what happened, or because there's direct documentary evidence proving a fact. In retaliation cases, employers usually file these motions because they have most of the evidence and like to wrap things up before the employee can show the jury what really happened. This time, I'm the one filing.) For the first time in this case — almost five years after firing me — Apple has now committed under oath, on a complete record, to a specific set of reasons for terminating my employment. There are three:
Each one is itself conduct that California law expressly protects from retaliation. So the entire motion is one sentence: Apple fired me, told me three reasons, and each of those reasons is conduct that's protected as a matter of law. Reason 3 is brand new — and Apple fought to keep it hidden for nearly five yearsThis is the part of the case I most want readers to understand, because it didn't happen the way I expected and it changes how I had to draft this motion. For nearly five years, Apple referred vaguely to "inconsistencies" or a "misleading impression" Plaintiff had supposedly created during an internal investigation. Apple never said what the inconsistency was, what I had supposedly misrepresented, or how it bore on the termination decision. The September 9, 2021 termination email didn't say. The September 15, 2021 letter from Apple's outside counsel didn't say. Apple's March 2022 sworn DOL/OSHA position statement didn't say. Apple's August 2025 verified interrogatory responses didn't say. And — importantly — Apple's Amended Answer didn't say either. It used the same boilerplate it had used for years. I tried repeatedly to make Apple identify what it was actually claiming. I filed motions to strike Apple's affirmative defenses. The Court ordered Apple to plead concrete factual allegations, observing in May 2025 that the supporting information was "at least in part, within [Apple's] possession, custody, or control." Apple's amended Answer continued to use boilerplate. In July 2025 I served Special Interrogatories asking Apple to identify the complete factual basis of every stated termination reason and every affirmative defense. Apple refused to answer most of them. I filed a motion to compel in March 2026. Apple defended its prior non-responses as adequate. On March 30, 2026, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore rejected Apple's interrogatory-counting methodology, granted my motion, and ordered Apple to supplement. The same order observed that this case had produced "an unprecedented number of discovery disputes" expending "a considerable amount of the Court's limited judicial resources." That is what it took to get Apple to disclose:
I did not have the certified transcript of Bertolus's testimony until 3:25 PM on April 22, 2026 — less than 24 hours before the motion deadline. I paid $4,036.09 in expedited transcript fees to get it that fast. I worked through the night cutting an initial 50-page draft down to the Court's 25-page limit and filed one day late, on April 24. I filed a Motion for Leave to File Past Deadline on April 25 explaining the cause of the delay; Apple filed a motion to strike. Judge Chen has not yet ruled on either. Once you understand that Reason 3 only crystallized at Bertolus's April 17 deposition, the substance of what Bertolus said becomes the heart of the motion. Bertolus testified that his decision to terminate me was based, in part, on my July-August 2021 complaint of sexual misconduct against my senior director Dan West related to a 2017 dinner. He testified that:
Asked at the deposition whether my senior director's communications with me were appropriate, Bertolus responded: "you seem pretty feminine — I don't even want to even go there and speculate." When questioned about that comment later in the deposition, Bertolus stated he did not remember saying it. Apple's counsel objected to the line of questioning. West himself, at his April 13 deposition, testified that Apple's own ER investigators told him his conduct toward me at the 2017 dinner was "not appropriate." He confirmed under oath that he had told me in text messages that what he had done that night with the sous chef "was one of the worst things [he'd] ever done." The sous chef — whom my senior director arranged a sexual or romantic liaison with at a $200+ dinner West paid for — is now deceased. I did not know any of this when I filed my complaint in this lawsuit in 2023. I did not know any of this when Apple filed its Amended Answer. I did not know any of this when Apple filed its sworn DOL position statement, or when Apple verified its interrogatory responses through August 2025. I learned the substance of Apple's third stated reason for firing me through court-ordered discovery in April 2026. Why "Reason 3" is, on its own, summary-judgment material.... Once you have the disclosure, the legal point is straightforward. Filing a sexual harassment complaint is protected activity under FEHA, Title VII, California Labor Code § 1102.5(b), § 98.6, and supports a Tameny claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The right to complain does not depend on the merits of the complaint. Wrighten v. Metro. Hosps., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir. 1984). Treating a protected complaint as itself misconduct — calling it "misleading" because the complainant didn't object contemporaneously, or didn't text the right things during the underlying conduct — is itself retaliation. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1043 (2005); Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986). When the Vice President of a Fortune 50 company testifies that a stated reason he fired a Senior Engineering Program Manager was, in part, the manager's complaint of sexual misconduct by her supervisor — a complaint that Apple's own ER investigators told the supervisor was warranted — that is direct evidence of retaliation. No burden-shifting analysis is required. Wallace v. County of Stanislaus, 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 123 (2016). The new statute that helpsThere's also a new California statute that didn't exist when this case was filed. In 2023, California passed SB 497, codified at Labor Code § 98.6(b)(1) and effective January 1, 2024. It creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation whenever an employer takes adverse action within 90 days of protected activity. I cleared every protected activity in this case within 90 days of being fired. Many of them within days: 10 days after the August 30 Twitter post Bertolus identified as the trigger; 6 days after my September 3–7 written-communications requests; 11 days after my OSHA and California Labor Commissioner filings; 14 days after my NLRB filing; 17 days after my August 23 Issue Confirmation went to Apple's Senior Director of Employee Relations and Senior Director of Legal-HR; 21 days after the EPA inspection of my office; 28 days after my EEOC/DFEH charge — which issued its Right to Sue letter the morning of my termination. The presumption attaches. And here's the thing: Apple's only stated reasons are the three identified above, and each one is itself protected activity. Retaliation cannot rebut a presumption of retaliation. Apple has nothing else to point to. A few of the more striking facts the motion lays out:
I want to highlight the second termination reason briefly because, with the harassment-complaint piece now in the record, it lands differently. Apple's "refusal to cooperate" finding rests on the fact that I asked for investigation communications to be in writing. Both Kagramanov and Okpo admitted at deposition that no Apple policy prohibits written-communication investigations or requires oral-only meetings. I had a real reason for the request: I was filing an NLRB affidavit the next day, and I had pending complaints with EEOC, DFEH, OSHA, and the California Labor Commissioner. I wanted a record. And what was the unrecorded oral conversation Apple insisted on? Okpo testified that the basis of his September 3 and September 7 outreach — the outreach Apple built Reason 2 on — was to question me about whether I had texted, during the 2017 dinner, that the sous chef my senior director set me up with was "cute." Reason 2 thus rests on my refusal to submit to unrecorded oral questioning, by a male investigator, about whether I had been interested in engaging in sexual activity with the man my supervisor set me up with — the underlying conduct of my own harassment complaint. I have a right to make a complaint, and I have a right not to be subjected to intrusive questioning about my sexual interests. Apple has refused to comply with the Court's order requiring a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate deposition. On April 22, 2026, Magistrate Judge Westmore characterized Apple's position on the 30(b)(6) deposition as "unreasonable" and stated that Apple "should know better." Apple has continued to refuse to commit to a date. The Court directed me to include a request for a preliminary injunction in this motion. (Order at Dkt. 273.) I'm asking the Court to reinstate me to payroll and to medical, dental, and vision insurance at the level in effect on September 9, 2021, pending final judgment. Loss of employer-provided health coverage threatening access to medical care is irreparable harm under Ninth Circuit law. On the balance of equities, Apple's own witness gave them away: my senior director, Dan West, testified he would provide me an equivalent position if legally ordered to reinstate. Briefing schedule from here:
This case has been pending for nearly three years. Apple has spent that time refusing to produce evidence, shifting its story, and asking the Court for delay after delay. The harassment-complaint-retaliation reason — Reason 3 — Apple kept buried in boilerplate for nearly five years and disclosed only after a court order and a deposition one day after the discovery cutoff. Now its own admissions, finally on the record under oath, are what I'm using to ask the Court to rule in my favor as a matter of law. I'll post updates here as briefing develops. The hearing is public. So is the trial in October. It's happening. — Ashley FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 31, 2026 Contact: Ashley Gjovik | (415) 964-6272 | [email protected] LaborMedia | [email protected] WORKERS, LABOR GROUPS TO RALLY AT SAN FRANCISCO FEDERAL COURTHOUSE OVER COURT-ORDERED GAG ON EMPLOYEE SPEECH ABOUT HER OWN BODY Federal judge ordered fired Apple worker to delete public speech about workplace conditions, NLRB charges, and employee grievances — and to stop talking about it going forward, potentially forever — based solely on a Big Tech employer's say-so, and with no hearing, no findings, no motion, and pending NLRB charges. SAN FRANCISCO — On Thursday, April 2, 2026, at 12:00 PM, workers, labor organizers, and whistleblower advocates will rally outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, to demand that federal courts stop allowing employers to silence workers who speak publicly about their own working conditions, their own bodies, and their own experiences on the job. The rally is organized by Ashley Gjovik, a former Apple senior engineering program manager who was fired in 2021 after publicly reporting environmental hazards, invasive employee studies, and workplace surveillance — and who has now been ordered by a federal magistrate judge to delete her public speech and stop talking about Apple's unlawful conduct and unfair labor practices, based on Apple's unilateral claim that her own experiences, witness testimony, and complaints are Apple's "confidential business information." The rally is held in partnership with LaborMedia, Tech Workers United, Whistleblower United (WBU), California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day, WorkWeek, and the United Front Committee for a Labor Party (UFCLP).  WHAT HAPPENED On March 30, 2026, a federal magistrate judge in the Northern District of California ordered Gjovik to "de-publish" speech about Apple's workplace practices and treat anything Apple designates as "Confidential" as off-limits — indefinitely, with no end date, and with no court ever determining whether the information is actually confidential. Apple's own motion had been denied for failure to follow court procedures. The court then gave Apple more than Apple asked for — as a freebie. The boss couldn't even be bothered to do the paperwork, and the court did the boss's job for it. No hearing was held. No evidence was reviewed. No findings were made. The information Apple wants silenced: Gjovik's testimony and public statements about Apple asking female employees to track their menstrual cycles, measure their cervical mucus, and track intimate details of their reproductive and sexual health — all for product development research. Gjovik declined to participate and complained. Gjovik also complained about other workplace studies and surveillance. Apple claims all of it is secret — and will now move to designate all of it as permanently confidential under the court's blanket order, which Apple is using as an NDA that protects only Apple's business interests. The order does not protect privacy. It inverts it: the corporation that invaded its workers' privacy is now using a federal judge to stop the worker from telling anyone about it — while Apple is under investigation by multiple government agencies, including the NLRB and NIH, for the same conduct. Apple has never designated a single document it produced in the lawsuit as confidential. The only thing Apple has ever designated is Gjovik's own deposition testimony — her own words about her own body and her own workplace complaints. Apple then sought contempt sanctions for Gjovik discussing the same topics she has been publicly discussing since 2021, that she filed in NLRB charges, that she pled in her lawsuit, that appear in published court orders, in a peer-reviewed medical journal, on a federal clinical trials registry, and in press coverage in the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. The NLRB previously found merit in Gjovik's allegations, filed suit against Apple, and reached a national settlement in April 2025 requiring Apple to stop enforcing confidentiality policies that restrict workers' rights to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions. Apple agreed. Then Apple asked a federal court to do the same thing through a different mechanism. WHY THIS MATTERS TO EVERY WORKER This case is not just about one worker and one tech company. It is about a tool that any employer can use against any worker — and that courts are approving without scrutiny. Here is what happened, step by step:
This is not unique to Gjovik's case. Workers who have litigated against Apple report being subjected to the same pattern: Apple obtains a protective order, designates the worker's complaints as confidential, uses the designations to derail the case, and the worker ends up silenced — whether by the court's order or by their own lawyer's advice to stop talking before things get worse. Plaintiff-side attorneys have described refusing to take cases against Apple entirely because the return on investment is destroyed by Apple's litigation tactics. The protective order is the mechanism that makes all of it possible. If this framework stands, here is what it means for workers: YOUR BOSS CAN CLAIM YOUR COMPLAINTS ARE A TRADE SECRET. If you report unsafe conditions, harassment, wage theft, or invasive surveillance, your employer can designate your account of what happened as its "confidential information" — turning your own words against you. YOU CAN BE GAGGED FROM TALKING TO YOUR COWORKERS. Organizing requires communication. If your description of the problem is designated "Confidential," you cannot share it with the coworkers you are trying to organize — or you risk contempt of court. YOU CAN BE GAGGED FROM TALKING TO THE GOVERNMENT. The gag order in this case makes no exception for communications with the NLRB, OSHA, the EPA, or any other government agency. A worker under this order who describes her working conditions to an NLRB investigator could be held in contempt. YOU CAN BE GAGGED FROM TALKING TO THE PRESS. The order requires deletion of blog posts and social media. A worker who speaks to a journalist about her workplace experiences could be ordered to delete the interview. YOUR EMPLOYER DECIDES WHAT YOU CAN SAY. The scope of the gag order is defined by whatever the employer designates. No judge reviews the designation before it takes effect. The employer stamps "Confidential"; the court enforces. The worker must comply or face contempt. THE GAG HAS NO END DATE. The order says speech is restricted "until found otherwise" — with no sunset, no timeline for adjudication, and no guaranteed process for resolution. It can last forever. YOUR EMPLOYER CAN USE THIS TO WIN THE LAWSUIT. In this case, Apple's defense is that the worker was fired for "leaking confidential information." By designating her speech as confidential, Apple gets a court order saying her speech is confidential — before any trial determines whether it actually was. The gag order becomes evidence for the employer's defense. THIS IS WHAT CONGRESS OUTLAWED NINETY-FOUR YEARS AGO The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 was passed because federal courts had become the bosses' favorite weapon — issuing injunctions to break strikes, ban picket lines, and silence workers who spoke up. Courts turned themselves into the enforcement arm of the employer class. Congress stripped federal courts of the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes because the courts couldn't stop siding with the employers. What this court did on March 30 is the same thing Congress outlawed ninety-four years ago: a federal judge issued an injunction silencing a worker's speech about a labor dispute, at the employer's request, without a hearing, without findings, and without meeting a single requirement of the law Congress passed to stop exactly this. The Norris-LaGuardia Act specifically protects "giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute." That is precisely what Gjovik has been doing — and precisely what the court has ordered her to stop. WHAT THE COALITION IS CALLING FOR The organizations supporting this rally call on: — Federal courts to stop enforcing employer confidentiality designations as gag orders on worker speech without independent judicial review, findings of harm, and constitutional analysis; — The Northern District of California to revise its Model Protective Order to include explicit protections for worker speech about working conditions, consistent with the NLRA, the First Amendment, and California labor law; — Congress to investigate the use of litigation protective orders as a tool for suppressing worker organizing and whistleblower activity; — State and federal legislators to close the loophole that allows employers to use litigation protective orders to achieve the same worker silencing that the Speak Out Act, Silenced No More Act, and NLRA were enacted to prohibit; — The NLRB to issue guidance on the interaction between litigation protective orders and Section 7 rights, and to enforce the existing settlement Apple is violating; — Apple Inc. to withdraw its confidentiality designations over worker testimony about working conditions, comply with the April 2025 NLRB settlement it signed, and stop using the federal courts to silence the workers it fired for speaking. RALLY DETAILS WHAT: Rally and press conference for workers' speech rights WHEN: Thursday, April 2, 2026, 12:00 PM WHERE: Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 (main entrance, Golden Gate Avenue side) SPEAKERS: — Ashley Gjovik, Plaintiff in Gjovik v. Apple Inc. — Representatives of LaborMedia, Whistleblower United (WBU), California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day, WorkWeek, and the United Front Committee for a Labor Party (UFCLP) — [Additional speakers TBD] BACKGROUND Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC, is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Edward M. Chen. Gjovik filed claims under California Labor Code sections 1102.5, 6310, 232.5, and 96(k), and a Tameny wrongful termination claim, alleging Apple fired her for reporting environmental hazards at a Superfund site where she worked, a skunkworks chip fab next to where she lived, reporting invasive employee surveillance and coercive medical studies, reporting other misconduct and risks/hazards, and organizing with coworkers about working conditions. The NLRB has found merit in dozens of Gjovik's allegations against Apple, the EPA conducted enforcement inspections based on her complaints and brought the first formal environmental enforcement action ever taken against Apple, and the GAO cited her public comments in a published report. In February 2026, Gjovik filed a formal rulemaking petition with the U.S. Courts Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Suggestion 26-CV-6), asking the Committee to address the growing use of protective order templates to circumvent workers' speech rights. The petition documents how courts issue these orders without the good cause findings required by the Federal Rules — and how employers then use them to silence workers' complaints. The Committee is scheduled to consider the petition on April 14, 2026. On March 31, 2026, Gjovik filed three Rule 72(a) objections challenging the magistrate judge's orders, raising thirty issues including prior restraint on speech, lack of statutory authority, violation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Garmon preemption, the bankruptcy automatic stay, and the use of the protective order to prejudge the central merits question in a whistleblower retaliation case. Case documents are publicly available on CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67843254/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ -- Ashley M. Gjøvik BS, JD, PMP (415) 964-6272  
Today I filed a written statement with exhibits as part of the Boston City Council Committee on Education's hearing to examine administrative transparency, student representation, and student rights at Northeastern University and other private higher education institutions in the City of Boston. See, Docket #0587, "Order for a hearing to review administrative transparency, equitable student representation, and student freedoms in higher education," https://www.boston.gov/public-notices/16570106. The hearing was sponsored by Councilors Julia M. Mejia and Miniard Culpepper and held on March 23, 2026 at Boston City Hall. The notice states: "the Boston City Council has an interest in understanding how higher education institutions in the City are addressing issues related to transparency, governance, and student engagement." (Notice PDF). My statement provides firsthand testimony and documentary evidence from my time as Program Manager at Northeastern University from September 2023 through September 2024. My statement addresses the three core concerns identified and documents how NEU's internal "accountability" infrastructure functions as an instrument of suppression and concealment. My statement includes:
The statement is accompanied by a sixteen-exhibit evidentiary packet including the EthicsPoint complaint, performance review, audit correspondence, PFML and termination documentation, NLRB charges and letter, and federal agency complaints and correspondence. Written comments submitted to the Committee become part of the public record and are available to all Councilors. The statement and exhibits are attached below. E-filed statement:
E-filed appendix with evidence packet:
Apple Wants Me Sanctioned for Saying "Menstruation" on the Internet. Here Are My Responses.2/20/2026 Apple filed an emergency letter with a federal court demanding sanctions, contempt, a restraining order on my speech, and deletion of my blog post and social media posts about my NLRB charges. They wanted an unrecorded phone call within 24 hours to make it happen. No motions, no evidence, no briefing, no court reporter, and no public visibility to what happens. Apple wanted my coworkers to know Apple was getting me called into detention with a Judge, but they didn't want anyone to see what was said or understand what the outcome was, other than it was all happening because Apple called me a "leaker" when I complained about work conditions and demanded that Apple be a better employer.
Apple's lawyers even emailed me demanding I delete social media posts and blog posts that they wanted me to self-identify as "leaking" about work conditions. I told Apple's lawyers to eat rocks. Then they escalated to a federal court, accusing me of gross misconduct and saying I'm causing irreparable harm to Apple, and cited and quoted my NLRB charges against Apple alleging that Apple violated the NLRA. Apple also repeatedly claimed that me complaining about Apple's intrusive requests, monitoring, questioning and "studies" of employee genital secretions was also Apple Confidential and suggested I was "breaching" court Orders (that's asking a court to hold me in contempt), and should be forced to delete my posts (that's sanctions/injunctive relief), and be ordered to stop "leaking" (that's a prior restraint gag order). I, once again, told Apple's lawyers to eat rocks. During this period of time Apple accumulated three new NLRB charges like it was collecting Pokémon cards. .... On February 16, 2026, I filed a new unfair labor practice charge against Apple Inc. with NLRB. The charge contains ten counts alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act. The accompanying cover letter, complete with deposition transcript excerpts, paints a picture so extraordinary that it warrants serious attention from labor law practitioners, employment scholars, and anyone interested in the boundaries of corporate power over employees' bodies and speech.
The short version: Apple's lawyers designated an employee's deposition testimony about my own cervical mucus, ovulation, and menstrual cycle as Apple's confidential business information, then told me that if I disagreed, I could write Apple a memorandum explaining why my bodily secretions don't belong to the company. The long version is even worse. Background: The Settlement That Should Have Ended This My earlier charges (Case 32-CA-284428 and related cases) resulted in a General Counsel complaint and a national settlement agreement reached in April 2025. That settlement required Apple to rescind overbroad confidentiality policies that restricted employees' Section 7 rights, post a nationwide notice promising not to discipline employees for discussing working conditions, and agree not to enforce its definition of "Proprietary Information" to the extent it covered terms and conditions of employment. The settlement included a catch-all: Apple promised not to "in any like or related manner interfere with your rights under Section 7." Critically, the settlement contained a self-executing default provision. Upon non-compliance, the Regional Director would reissue the October 2024 complaint, Apple's allegations would be deemed admitted, its answer withdrawn, and the Board could enter a full remedy order without trial. A Court of Appeals judgment could be entered ex parte. That provision matters for everything that follows. ..... I Filed a CERCLA Petition to Put the South Bay (Boston, MA) on the National Priorities List2/13/2026 Read the full petition here: Petition to put South Bay on the NPL (Feb. 13 2026).
For those of you following my work, this is going to be a surprise. I've been dealing with a second environmental disaster — this one in Boston — while simultaneously litigating against Apple and navigating bankruptcy. I didn't talk about it publicly because I needed to be sure of what I was looking at before I said it out loud, but I'm sure now & it's a real mess. Today I filed a Petition for Preliminary Assessment under CERCLA § 105(d) and a Sixty-Day Notice for a Citizen Suit under the Clean Water Act and CERCLA, nominating the South Bay in Boston for the National Priorities List. There have never been any NPL sites in the City of Boston. The petition argues there should have been one a long time ago. Most people who visit Boston don't realize that at least a third of the city shouldn't exist. The Shawmut Peninsula (the original landmass) was a tiny, hilly island barely connected to the mainland by a narrow tidal isthmus called "the Neck." Everything around it was ocean, tidal flats, salt marshes, and bays. The South Bay was one of the largest of these. It was a working harbor, a port of international importance, and the economic heart of early colonial Boston. Tidal streams, including the Roxbury Creek and Dorchester Brook, fed into it. The ocean ebbed and flowed, with high tides twice a day. Over approximately two hundred years, Boston filled this bay. They filled it with garbage, sewage, construction debris, coal ash, rubble from the Great Fire of 1872, cinders, street sweepings, and dredged harbor mud. The wharves were built on timber cribbing and wood pile foundations; the spaces between were stuffed with whatever was available. Sugar refineries, iron foundries, and slave-trade shipping operations filled the shoreline for their own purposes. The South Boston Iron Works, the largest foundry in the country by mid-century, repeatedly filled its land from the 1830s through 1860. The Boston Wharf Company (whose directors were also shareholders in the Bay State Sugar Refinery and notorious slave owners) filled the areas around Fort Point Channel. The Gillette razor company moved in around 1905 and was still filling (with straight-up bricks) into the 1960s. The City and Commonwealth were involved in or approved nearly all of it. .... On January 13 2026, a Case Management conference was held and the Court granted my request for a Summary Judgement schedule. At the prior hearing last year, the Judge said he wanted it to be a dual Summary Judgement requiring Apple to file any Summary Judgement motion they may have too.
(Summary Judgement is where the Court will rule on substantive issues in the case, or even the whole case, prior to trial if there is "no dispute of fact" either with parties agreeing to the facts or the existence of direct evidence like emails or documents proving a fact. Employers usually love to file Motions for Summary Judgement in retaliation cases - they have most of the evidence, refuse to produce anything to the employee, try to make the employee sound nuts, and quickly move to end the case before the employee can get any proof of employer wrongdoing - and they usually win because of that tomfoolery) Here, Apple repeatedly said they were not ready to file a Motion for Summary Judgement and kept asking for & creating delays. Apple even said in the Joint Status for that hearing they believed it was too "premature to expedite the presentation of evidence." Of course they don't want to present evidence, all of the evidence shows Apple's at fault. At the last Status Conference the Judge he was going to schedule the dual Summary Judgement at the next conference. In the Joint Status on Jan. 6 Apple still said they were "evaluating whether to file a motion for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment." It's wild to hear an employer say that, especially when the Judge already said he would schedule it, and it shows how meritless Apple's defense has been all along. The Judge issued a schedule on Feb. 6 2026, and my deadline for filing my Motion for Summary Judgment on April 23. Then Apple will file their motion and opposition on May 7. I then file my reply and opposition on May 21. Apple's reply is due May 28. Then the public hearing is June 11 2026. (It will be in person - come watch!). Following the Jan. 13 2026 Case Management conference, on Feb. 6 2026, the Northern District of California also published the trial schedule for Gjovik v Apple retaliation lawsuit (Case No. 23-cv-04597-EMC). The Case Management & Pretrial Order for a Jury Trial ordered the following:
..... On Dec. 11 2025, I filed a sixty-day notice of an incoming Clean Water Act Citizen Suit, as required by Section 505(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). This notice communicates my intent to file a citizen enforcement action for ongoing violations of Clean Water Act Sections 404, 401, and 1311 at the Saratoga Creek system and adjacent wetlands in Santa Clara, California. Between approximately 1950 and 1985, the parties identified in this notice discharged fill material into Saratoga Creek and adjacent jurisdictional wetlands without obtaining required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They repeatedly buried Saratoga Creek (a superficial and 200ft below ground surface aquifer) by placing fill material in the creek channel and installing underground pipes, managing the Waters of the U.S. as if it were stormwater runoff. They filled approximately 500+ acres of tideland-adjacent wet meadow, destroyed rare and nationally important ecosystems, and intentionally installed a drop structure that functions as a complete barrier to fish passage in a stream that provides natural habitat for Chinook Salmon. They also razed prime farmland of international acclaim against the farmers' wishes, non-consensually annexed these pioneer farming families' land, disturbed soils known to contain Native American burial grounds and artifacts, presumably disposed of Native American remains via a garbage dump, clear-cut irreplaceable pear orchards, and filled the natural wetland and creek in order to cover it with concrete and build industrial parks—which they used to create no less than four Superfund toxic waste cleanup sites in just a couple of decades. None of these activities were authorized by Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, and no Section 401 state water quality certification was obtained. These violations continue to the present day. The fill material remains in place in waters of the United States. The buried creek continues flowing through underground infrastructure, or builds pressure underground where it lost the ability to surface and seep. Each day the unpermitted fill remains constitutes a continuing violation of the Clean Water Act. The attached notice provides detailed documentation of these violations. (There is also a text version of the notice). Additional exhibits and supporting documentation are available in an Appendix. The notice will be sent via certified mail will satisfy the sixty-day notice requirement under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). If the violations are not remediated within sixty days, I intend to file suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees. If the EPA or the Army Corps commences enforcement action within sixty days, a citizen suit may be precluded under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). I would strongly prefer that the EPA and Army Corps take action as I am not a civil engineer and this matter will require professional engineering oversight. I have a pending citizen suit already filed in the Northern District of California regarding hazardous waste and related violations at a specific facility in this location (Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Santa Clara, Jenab, et al., No. 5:25-cv-07360, N.D. Cal.). Only in researching that facility did I realize what was done in the overall area, and accordingly I filed this Notice and request enforcement action. - Ashley M. Gjovik  View the creek aerial photo album on Flickr here.
     The US EPA announced a finalized federal enforcement action (including a $261,283 fine & federal consent agreement) against Apple Inc over this unpermitted semiconductor manufacturing facility, next to thousands of homes and a playground, in Santa Clara, California. The US EPA has now published the legal documents and the case docket for their RCRA ("Resource Conservation and Recovery Act" federal hazardous waste management) enforcement action taken against Apple Inc over Apple's Santa Clara semiconductor manufacturing facility at 3250 Scott Blvd. The Consent Agreement and Final Order was signed and finalized as Case. No. RCRA-09-2026-0006, dated Oct. 27 2025.
In the Matter of Apple, Inc., U.S. EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006, Consent Agreement and Final Order (EPA Region IX Oct. 27, 2025) The Agreement & Order determined Apple was generating, treating, storing, and disposing of federally regulated hazardous waste at 3250 Scott Blvd without federally required permits (¶ 27, 43, 53); was unlawfully venting "solvent exhaust...directly to the atmosphere" (¶ 47); was unlawfully asserting, without analysis, that its federally regulated hazardous waste was not federally regulated hazardous waste (¶ 31-33, 36-38); generated more than 1,000kg of federally regulated hazardous waste per month (¶ 28), yet abandoned that waste on weekends and holidays and did not monitor, inspect, or document that waste as required (¶ 60-61); stored federally regulated hazardous waste onsite without required labels or information, or even closing the containers (¶ 52, 53, 56-57). The Agreement and Order explains this enforcement action arose out of my "Tip and Complaint" to the US EPA in June 2023 regarding Apple's operations at this facility, and that Apple was informed the inspection (and resulting enforcement action was due to my complaints to the EPA). (¶ 12-13). Note: I specifically asked EPA to tell Apple that I was the one who sent them. (view the June 12 2023 Complaint as a PDF or in DropBox with attachments). The Agreement and Order states the enforcement action was based on inspection findings documented in a Notice of Violation and Requests for Information dated April 30 2024 (view the report as a PDF, or a larger PDF with attachments, or on Dropbox with all attachments and additional records) (¶ 15-16) and Nov. 6 2024 (¶ 17); and a Notice of Potential Enforcement Action sent June 26 2025 (¶ 19). (view the PDF). The enforcement action is based only on violations of the RCRA identified during EPA inspections on August 17-18 2023 and January 16 2024. The Agreement & Order specifically preserved jurisdiction for my Citizen Suit to continue to prosecute Apple and other defendants over violations of other federal environmental laws at this facility and any other violations of the RCRA not expressly settled at this facility. The Agreement and Order only settles liability regarding financial penalties for the specific violations identified by EPA on the specific inspection dates noted, but still allows me to still seek injunctive relief or other equitable relief, or for the DOJ to seek criminal sanctions, even for these same violations. (¶ 80-82). The Agreement and Order also still allows me to seek penalties for additional RCRA violations identified in the Citizen Suit if in addition to the ones EPA identified during its inspections. (¶ 74). In the consent agreement, Apple does not admit or deny any "specific factual allegations" but does "waive any right to contest the allegations and its right to appeal" (¶ 69) and "waives any rights or defenses... for this matter to be resolved in federal court" (¶ 70) if filed by the EPA (¶ 83). Apple certified "under penalty of law to EPA" that "to the best of [its] knowledge and belief formed after reasonably inquiry of individuals immediately responsible for compliance at this Facility" that "it has taken steps necessary to comply with RCRA... for the specific violations at the Facility alleged in the [Agreement & Order]." (¶ 71-72). Critically, this means that the US EPA is closing this matter by taking Apple's word for it that Apple resolved these violations. While its important that US EPA took this enforcement action, the Agreement and Order makes no factual finding the violations are actually resolved or that Apple changed its practices in such a way to prevent violations from re-occurring. This makes my pending environmental Citizen Suit even more critical. The Consent Agreement & Final Order contains seven counts, grouping hundreds of individual violations under specific types of RCRA violations including:
Apple is concurrently facing citations for violations of air pollution laws, with open cases filed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in Aug.-Sept. 2024 complaining Apple was operating the facility without required air permits, venting the solvent waste tank to the atmosphere without abatement, and exhausting unlawful amounts of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide into the ambient air. (view the citations here). As noted, the RCRA violations cited by US EPA at 3250 Scott Blvd in this case included a 1,700 gallon solvent waste tank that did not have required permits, that was managing federally regulated hazardous waste but which Apple claimed was not federally reregulated hazardous waste, and Apple was venting the hazardous waste solvent exhaust to the atmosphere (where the apartment windows and fresh air intakes are located) without abatement of the pollution and without air pollution permits. The April 2024 EPA report notes Apple claimed it was operating this tank (unlawfully) since 2017. OCT. 27 2025 US EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTION Docket: In re Apple, Inc., US EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006 (Oct. 27, 2025) Filing: Consent Agreement and Final Order, In re Apple, Inc., EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006 (Region 9, Oct. 27, 2025) Citation: In the Matter of Apple, Inc., U.S. EPA Docket No. RCRA-09-2026-0006, Consent Agreement and Final Order (EPA Region IX Oct. 27, 2025) Reference: US EPA resources with information about RCRA (commonly pronounced as "rick-rah"): Overview; History; Compliance. ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SUIT (SEPT. 2025 - ONGOING). Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Santa Clara, Khalil Jenab, et al., No. 5:25-cv-07360 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025-) Free, public access to the Citizen Suit case docket is available on CourtListener here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71272728/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ 2016 CALIFORNIA DTSC CONSENT AGREEMENT
In 2016, Apple entered a hazardous waste Consent Agreement with the California EPA over hazardous waste violations at two different Apple facilities in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The agreement was for at least five years and covered all Apple hazardous waste activities in California. The agreement similarly found that Apple was violating hazardous waste laws under both federal and state laws including many of the same issues at 3250 Scott Blvd including operating without required permits, failing to properly label and mark hazardous waste, and unlawfully transporting hazardous waste without required manifests or records (including unlawfully exporting hazardous waste to other countries). DTSC fined Apple $450,000. View the 2016 Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and Announcement. In 2016, Apple's environmental team told Reuters that "This matter involves an oversight in filing paperwork... We've worked... to ensure that going forward we have the proper permits for our current site. As we do with all our facilities, we followed our stringent set of health and safety standards, which go well beyond legal requirements." (See, California EPA says settled with Apple on hazardous waste claims). The Consent Agreement could only be terminated if Apple demonstrated compliance with hazardous waste laws at all of its facilities. At the time Apple was able to obtain a termination of the agreement in 2020, Apple was admittedly in violation of federal hazardous waste laws at 3250 Scott Blvd. If the 2017-2025 RCRA violations had been identified and reported, those violations likely would have prevented the termination of the 2016-2020 California EPA Consent Agreement. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for information. -Ashley On September 2 2025, I filed an environmental Citizen Suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendants are Apple Inc., the City of Santa Clara, and the property owner. The cases arises out of activities at a modern semiconductor fabrication facility. I'm alleging violations of five federal environmental statutes—the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—and California public nuisance law. On October 10 2025, the City of Santa Clara filed a Motion to Dismiss requesting to remove themselves from the lawsuit, generally claiming immunity from liability due to their status as a municipal government. On October 25, 2025, I filed my Opposition and Request for Judicial Notice. The hearing is scheduled for November 20, 2025 in San Jose federal court.
In Santa Clara County in the 1970s and 1980s, the County (including City of Santa Clara) became ground zero for semiconductor manufacturing disasters. Reckless industrial practices led to toxic waste dumps, groundwater contamination, chemical spills, deaths, evacuations, and toxic clouds. The result: Santa Clara County ended up with the most Superfund cleanup sites in the nation. Congress looked at what happened in Santa Clara County and enacted the federal environmental laws at issue in this case. RCRA, CERCLA, CAA, CWA, and EPCRA exist largely because of what happened here. Local regulations created in response to Santa Clara County disasters—like the Toxic Gas Ordinance and silane-specific safety regulations—were later adopted nationally in the International Fire Code. The semiconductor fabrication facility at 3250 Scott Boulevard uses some of the most dangerous chemicals in industrial manufacturing including arsine, phosphine, mercury, silane, and extensive industrial solvents while sitting extraordinarily close to residential housing. The facility is also adjacent to two city-owned parks: Meadow Park and Creekside Park. Both parks are advertised on the city's website and feature playgrounds, BBQ facilities, and fitness equipment. The city invites the public to use these parks. The city knows these specific chemicals have caused deaths and mass casualties. The city knows the community has fought for decades against locating these facilities near homes. The city cannot claim ignorance or good faith. In 2023 and 2024, the EPA conducted inspections and found RCRA violations at the facility. According to EPA records, the facility reported releasing 16,083 pounds of air pollutants annually and its currently facing multiple air pollution violations from the Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District. Beginning in at least 2020, multiple residents filed complaints with the city about chemical exposure. The city did nothing. The City of Santa Clara voluntarily became a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). This means the city demanded exclusive control over enforcement of federal hazardous waste laws at the local level. Only three cities in Santa Clara County chose to take on this responsibility. The city positioned itself as the local enforcer of RCRA, CAA, CWA, and EPCRA. According to the city's own 2025 Operating Budget, Santa Clara employs just 3.95 full-time equivalent employees for CUPA administration and enforcement for the entire city. The budget reveals the city's enforcement priorities:
Between 2015 and 2017, the city approved the development of over 2,000 residential units at the Santa Clara Square Apartments location. During this approval process, the city kept the semiconductor facility's operations out of the Environmental Impact Report. The city never disclosed to future residents what was next door. This violated the city's own General Plan, which requires restricting "the use and storage of hazardous materials for industrial uses within 500 feet of existing residential uses." When residents began experiencing chemical exposure, the city concealed information. In 2020 and 2021, I and other residents filed complaints with the city. I spoke directly with the Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Gary Welling, the Water and Sewer Director, about the chemical exposure. Other victims of chemical exposure also contacted both of them. The city did nothing, disclosed nothing, and stopped nothing. Instead, the city concealed ongoing violations rather than reporting them to CalOES or EPA as required. The city refused Public Records Act requests. The city may have even tipped off the facility about an unannounced EPA inspection—which would constitute a federal crime. In response to my Public Records Act request, the city stated it has no documentation of ever enforcing the Toxic Gas Ordinance—an ordinance created specifically to prevent catastrophic disasters at facilities exactly like 3250 Scott Boulevard.   The federal environmental statutes at issue expressly authorize citizen suits against government agencies:
The EPA found RCRA violations at the facility in 2023 and 2024. The city was aware of these violations for years and did not even document them, let alone cite them. The city further concealed violations by omitting details from public records and refused Public Records Act requests. The city may have also tipped off the facility about an EPA inspection, which would be a criminal violation of RCRA -- and repeatedly refused to respond to Public Records requests about this despite there certainly being evidence of communications that led to their ad hoc "inspection" the same day as the unannounced EPA inspection. The facility releases over 16,000 pounds of air pollutants annually, including mercury, arsenic, phosphine, benzene, toluene, NMP, silane, and formaldehyde. The city knew there were not required air permits or abatement technology, the city knew the releases would enter the apartments and parks, and they failed to stop it, report it, warn the residents, or refer the matter to the Air Quality Management District. The city contributed to the construction and operation of a major emitting facility without required air permits, and that facility has already caused irreparable harm. The city also holds a municipal NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008) with specific requirements. The permit mandates that the city "shall implement an industrial and commercial site control program" and "shall conduct inspections, effective follow-up, and enforcement to abate potential and actual non-stormwater discharges." The city violated these permit terms. The city failed to implement the required site control program, failed to conduct proper inspections and enforcement, and failed to respond to complaints about pollution. The stormwater at the facility accumulates (at least) the same pollution being released into the air, and then that storm water flows directly the SF Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city also took on the role of emergency response commission under EPCRA and has direct mandatory obligations to report EPCRA matters to CalOES. The city failed to report known hazardous substance releases. The city concealed information instead of providing it to the community, directly violating the "Right-to-Know" purpose of EPCRA. The city refused to report violations to CalOES or EPA as required. The city helped conceal and enable ongoing violations with releases of extremely dangerous chemicals that could cause mass fatalities. The city also knew about the use, storage, and releases of lead, mercury, TCE, formaldehyde, and NMP at the facility. The city knew these toxic substances were being mishandled, were not being property reported or controlled, and that the reckless handling of these TSCA regulated substances had and was causing injury to the public and environment. The city failed to report TSCA violations to the EPA, while helping to conceal and enable ongoing violations. The city didn't just fail to enforce environmental laws. The city actively participated in the violations, encouraging and enabling those violations, with full knowledge of the risk and harm. The city approved residential development while concealing what the facility was doing next door. The city kept the facility's operations out of the Environmental Impact Report. The city received direct complaints from injured residents and concealed information rather than acting. The city refused to disclose the facility's activities to people who were being harmed. The city financially benefits from enabling violations through tax revenue and other sources. The criminal provisions of RCRA, CAA, and CWA apply to "any person"—not just facility owners and operators. These provisions can reach contractors, accomplices, and anyone who knowingly contributes to violations. The city's conduct—concealment, enabling, and potential obstruction of EPA enforcement—creates plausible criminal liability. If the city has plausible criminal liability under these statutes, it certainly has civil liability under the citizen suit provisions. This is a novel legal theory in environmental citizen suits. Most cases involve cities that passively fail to enforce laws. This case involves a city that actively conspired with violators and aided their violations. I'm arguing that contribution, conspiracy, and similar theories apply when a defendant crosses the line from passive regulator to active participant. Further, under California Government Code § 830, public entities are liable for dangerous conditions on their property when they fail to warn or protect against known dangers. The city owns Meadow Park and Creekside Park. Both parks are located less than 230 feet from the facility. The city advertises these parks on its official website and invites the public to use them. The parks feature playgrounds, BBQ facilities, and fitness equipment. The parks are contaminated by and exposed to toxic releases from the facility (air, soil, groundwater, stormwater, sewer vapor, etc). The city knew about the dangers and failed to warn park users or take protective measures, and instead invited vulnerable populations to come to the parks, assuring them the parks were safe. I personally used both parks and was injured. I experienced dizziness, difficulty breathing, rashes, and gastrointestinal issues while at these parks—symptoms consistent with chemical exposure. California precedent establishes that counties can be liable for allowing dangerous third-party activities on public land. In Vedder v. County of Imperial, the court found a county liable for allowing explosive chemicals to be stored on property without adequate fire protection. Additionally, under California law, California Government Code § 815.6 ensures municipal tort liability when a public entity has a mandatory duty designed to protect against a specific type of injury, the entity is negligent with that duty, and the entity's negligence caused the kind of injuries that were supposed to be prevented if the entity had not been negligent in their duty. The city has mandatory duties under federal and California law with the statues at issue binding the city with requirements that are communicated with "shall," not "may." I lived at the Santa Clara Square Apartments. I made complaints to the city about chemical exposure and asked for help understanding what was happening. The city concealed what the facility was doing. I lost my job at Apple, my income, my savings, many of my friends, my reputation, my health, and my career due to my advocacy about safety and environmental hazards at this location. My toxic tort claims were dismissed due to statute of limitations, partly because the city concealed information that would have helped me discover the cause of my injuries sooner. While I lost everything, the city continued collecting tax revenue and reputational benefits from continuing to conceal and enable these dangerous operations. This case matters beyond my individual situation. I'm attempting to breathe life back into the underused EPCRA citizen suit provisions. I'm testing whether contribution and conspiracy theories can apply in environmental citizen suits when defendants cross the line from passive regulators to active participants. This case asks: What happens when the regulator becomes the enabler? Can cities hide behind immunity when they actively participate in violations rather than just failing to prevent them? The city took on enforcement responsibilities for federal environmental laws and then established policies, systems, and practices that enabled the businesses in the city to violate those same laws without consequence. The city actively concealed violations for financial benefit. The city enabled the same kind of scenario that these federal environmental laws were designed to prevent—in the very county whose disasters led to the creation of these laws. Relief against the city is necessary and will be unavailable if the city is dismissed. The venue is significant. The San Jose courthouse sits in the county where these federal environmental laws originated. The timing is significant too: semiconductor manufacturing is being re-shored to communities across America, making these questions urgent nationwide. I now live in Boston, Massachusetts. I was able to fundraise the money to purchase a plane ticket to California to attend the November 20, 2025 hearing in person. I believe the city is a necessary defendant, and their dismissal from this case would cause further irreparable harm to the community. -Ashley Environmental Citizen Suit Filed re: 3250 Scott Blvd & Apple's Skunkworks Fab (Sept. 2 2025)9/2/2025 Legal update! ⚖️ We now have an Environmental Citizen Suit filed in federal court against Apple, city of Santa Clara, & the property owner over their stupid skunkworks fab! It's time to shut that deathtrap down. 🛢️ ☠️ ⚗️ The Complaint is is available on CourtListener here and available below. Docket for Gjovik v Apple, Santa Clara, & Jenab et al (25-cv-07360):
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71272728/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ NBC Bay Area | Santa Clara group raises concerns about toxins from Apple chip plant (Aug. 16 2025)8/16/2025 NBC Bay Area nightly news covered our rally & press conference at Apple's skunkworks semiconductor fab next to thousands of apartments, public parks, & a children's playground. Watch the local news coverage at 3250 Scott Blvd today (Aug. 16 2025): Today we launched a Change.org Petition asking politicians and the EPA to shut down Apple's illegal chip fab at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California. Sign the Petition! We're also holding a rally & press conference at the public sidewalks next to the facility on August 16 2025 at 12pm - 2pm PT. If you're in the SF Bay Area come show the government & Apple that people don't want Apple dumping toxic waste on playgrounds!
On June 30 2025, I served Apple, City of Santa, EPA, and the property owner notice of an incoming EPA Citizen Suit under RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, and EPCRA -- as well as a public nuisance claim -- about Apple's illegal semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California.
Read the Notice here. On June 26 2025, US EPA served Apple with a notice of RCRA enforcement action re: Apple's fab at 3250 Scott Blvd, in Santa Clara, California. Read the notice here.    Today, I filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their dismissal of my appeal against Apple. This isn't just about my case—it's about protecting whistleblowers, AI safety, and fundamental due process rights that affect everyone. What Happened: A Procedural Trap The Ninth Circuit dismissed my appeal in May, claiming it lacked jurisdiction because the case wasn't "final." But they missed something crucial: federal law gives courts mandatory jurisdiction over appeals from orders denying injunctive relief, even if the case is still ongoing. Here's what the district court did:
This created an impossible situation: the court dismissed my claim for not addressing certain issues (even though I did address them), then refused to let me try to address those exact issues again. That's not how justice is supposed to work. Why This Matters Beyond My Case While I was fighting this procedural maze, Congress was paying attention to the underlying issues: New Federal Laws Vindicate My Claims
California Recognizes the Crisis In 2025, California passed comprehensive AI whistleblower protections after recognizing that employees represent "the last line of defense when corporate incentives prioritize growth, profit, or competitive advantage over public welfare." The state's analysis found that AI companies use "broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements" to prevent employees from reporting safety concerns—creating dangerous information asymmetries between companies and regulators. The Bigger Picture: Biometric Privacy Rights My advocacy directly prompted California's first comprehensive biometric privacy bill (SB 1189) in 2022. After I contacted my state senator about Apple's mass collection of biometric data through the "Gobbler" study, that same senator introduced legislation to protect Californians from exactly these practices. The bill would have prohibited:
This legislative response proves my case identified a genuine public policy crisis, not just a personal employment dispute. The Legal Arguments My motion for reconsideration makes several key points: 1. Mandatory Jurisdiction Exists Federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)) requires courts to hear appeals from orders denying injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit simply ignored this jurisdictional basis. 2. Due Process Violations You can't strike someone's legal arguments then claim they "waived" them. The district court created an impossible procedural trap that violates fundamental fairness. 3. Ongoing Irreparable Harm Apple still possesses intimate images obtained through illegal data collection and continues using them in litigation. This ongoing harm is exactly what immediate appellate review was designed to address. 4. National Importance Congress recognized these issues are so important they required emergency federal legislation. California found the same issues threaten public welfare statewide. What's at Stake This case isn't just about holding one company accountable. It's about:
Why I Keep Fighting As someone who worked on machine learning ethics at Apple, I saw firsthand how the company prioritized data collection over employee privacy and safety. When I tried to report these concerns, I faced retaliation that continues today. The federal investigations I'm supporting involve potential threats to millions of people. When tech companies can silence whistleblowers through procedural gamesmanship, everyone loses. Recent events prove I was right to sound the alarm:
The Road Ahead The Ninth Circuit now has a choice: follow federal law requiring them to hear appeals from injunctive relief denials, or continue enabling procedural traps that silence whistleblowers reporting on matters of national importance. I'm not asking for special treatment — just basic due process and application of existing law. Every whistleblower, every pro se litigant, and everyone who cares about AI safety should want courts to follow their own rules fairly. The motion is comprehensive, citing extensive evidence of procedural violations and demonstrating why immediate appellate review serves the public interest. It's time for the courts to prioritize justice over case management convenience. Documents
The fight for AI safety and whistleblower protection continues. Every voice matters, and every person who stands up for transparency and accountability helps build a safer future for everyone. - Ashley
Apple's "ANswer" to My Complaint it Illegally Fired MeOn May 19, 2025, the Court granted my motion to strike multiple defenses from Apple’s Answer to my Fifth Amended Complaint in the Gjovik v Apple civil litigation. (You can read my earlier post here.) The Court found that many of Apple’s defenses — Apple's arguments for why Apple should not be held liable for the harm it caused me — were legally deficient. This is litigation, so it is not enough to simply claim a termination was lawful or justified; a defendant must identify:
The Court struck a number of Apple’s defenses, including:
The Court directed Apple to file an amended Answer within 14 days — by June 3 — and required that each defense include concrete allegations supported by actual facts. Apple’s Amended Answer (Filed June 2, 2025)Apple filed a revised Answer one day early. However, the changes are mostly superficial. The newly inserted language is generic, formulaic, and legally insufficient. Example inserted language (repeated verbatim across defenses): “Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory and/or non-retaliatory business reasons… Plaintiff disclosed confidential product-related information… and failed to cooperate… during the Apple investigatory process.” These additions include no names, no dates, no documents, no policy citations, and no context — only broad, conclusory language with no factual grounding. Even in its revised “failure to mitigate damages” defense, Apple simply states that it is “currently unaware” of whether I sought other employment and is preserving the defense pending discovery. This defies the Court’s instruction to include some factual basis to justify asserting the defense. You can view the Microsoft Word "diff" of the first and second version here (and excerpt below). Legal Analysis (Crash Loop)Apple’s filing fails to comply with the Court’s order. Courts require more than legal conclusions — especially after being told exactly what’s missing. Apple appears to have simply copied the Court’s language back into the pleading without supplying the required facts. The Court’s Prior Instructions:
Yet, Apple’s response simply recites: “Plaintiff disclosed confidential product-related information… failed to cooperate… violated Apple policies…” That is not compliance — it is deflection. Further, Apple also:
The Court granted leave to amend to allow Apple to defend itself — not to recycle prior language or make new baseless accusations. This failure to comply not only leaves Apple exposed to another Rule 12(f) motion to strike, but risks a judicial finding of bad faith or procedural abuse. Consequences for AppleIf the Court strikes these defenses again:
This narrows the case. It tightens discovery. It makes the damages math simpler. And it removes one of the few remaining litigation levers. And the risk for Apple, if it refuses to resolve this, only compounds. Behind the ScenesThis amended Answer does not reflect a good-faith attempt to cure pleading deficiencies. It reflects a deliberate retreat from factual litigation altogether. Apple was given 14 days to revise its defenses after the Court struck them for being conclusory and unsupported. The Court explicitly instructed Apple to plead concrete facts — names, dates, events, documents. Instead, Apple submitted a filing that merely repeats legal conclusions, substitutes the Court’s own illustrative language as if it were factual pleading, and copy-pastes boilerplate text across multiple defenses — likely assembled in under 30 minutes. This is not a legal defense strategy. It is a procedural maneuver — unusually cautious, and concurrently reckless. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity for aggressive litigation. It filed nine motions to dismiss, repeatedly sought sanctions, and briefed complex jurisdictional and preemption issues. Since 2023, Apple’s litigation teams have fought my detailed allegations of environmental violations, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and antitrust violations. It is represented by multiple top-tier law firms with national reputations, and its internal legal department rivals most federal agencies. To suggest this filing reflects negligence or inexperience defies credibility. There is only one plausible explanation for this level of risk aversion: Apple did not want to tie itself to any factual narrative. More specifically, it appears Apple may have been preparing to plead “facts” derived through extrajudicial influence — and was ultimately forced to abandon that plan. In the days leading up to this filing, I raised concerns — through protected speech and formal agency communications — that Apple appeared to be interfering in parallel government proceedings, seemingly to engineer official findings to then cite in its civil Answer. I notified both government officials and the public (albeit cryptically) that if Apple exploited premature or coordinated agency action to shape its defense, it would face immediate and appropriate legal response from me. It is now especially notable that Apple’s Answer:
This last allegation is not just unsupported — it is reactive. It appears crafted to preemptively deflect from the very type of interference I warned about. This is not coincidence. It is confirmation. To underscore the point: Apple appeared to have coordinated with a major news outlet to publish a story reinforcing its planned defense narrative — timed to support a position in another proceeding. I became aware of this effort in real time. I contacted the outlet and, in precise legal terms, explained what Apple was doing: attempting to manipulate press coverage to manufacture evidentiary material. The article was pulled. It was never published. This isn’t the strategy of a company trying to win on the merits. It’s the strategy of a company trying to control the record — and failing. Containment is not a legal strategy. It’s reputational triage. And in litigation — where discovery, testimony, and trial timelines exist to surface the truth — triage almost always fails. Apple’s refusal to plead facts is now part of the evidentiary record. Its use of boilerplate in place of fact is part of the litigation history. If this Answer represents the collapse of a pre-fabricated narrative — forced to detour after exposure or internal panic — then what you’re seeing is not defense strategy: it’s collapse. -Ashley Diff of Apple's First Answer and Amended Answer:
The full Gjovik v Apple case Docket is here:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ Recent federal judicial decisions in Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (3:23-cv-04597, Northern District of California) represent a systematic judicial assault on federal environmental enforcement authority and constitutional due process protections. Through procedural manipulation disguised as case management, the defendant (Apple) and District Judge (Judge Edward Chen) created a framework that effectively immunizes corporate polluters from toxic tort liability while denying citizens fundamental constitutional rights. These decisions threaten to undermine decades of environmental protection law and federal enforcement capabilities. The implications of these decisions extend far beyond a single case, establishing precedent that could effectively eliminate private enforcement of environmental violations while creating procedural mechanisms for corporate defendants to escape liability through systematic rule manipulation.
The timeline also reveals the decision's direct conflict with federal enforcement priorities. After plaintiff's investigation revealed potential violations at Apple's semiconductor facility, her June 2023 EPA complaint triggered federal enforcement investigation at the site. The EPA's response validates that plaintiff's concerns warranted regulatory attention (precisely the type of citizen enforcement mechanism Congress intended to encourage through environmental statutes). Chen's decision penalizes the thorough investigation that led to federal enforcement action, essentially ruling that plaintiff should have filed suit before conducting the due diligence that revealed actionable violations and prompted EPA intervention. On May 20 2024, Chen ruled on a Motion to Dismiss and decided to allow Gjovik's environmental claims to move forward. Then, despite previously approving the claims, on October 1 2024, Chen dismissed the same environmental claims with leave to amend, specifically instructing Gjovik to plead "inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence." Then, on February 27 2025, after Gjovik amended as instructed, Chen dismissed the same claims with prejudice using an entirely different legal standard based on judicial notice of public documents. In response to Apple's fifth 12(b)(6) motion, Chen took judicial notice of Apple's own regulatory documents and then made factual determinations about what "reasonable inquiry" would have reveal and what that inquiry would have consisted of. Chen then also resolved disputed questions about reasonable diligence without testimony or discovery, and concluded any factual conflict in pleadings with deference to the defendant's unsubstantial claims. Chen also denied the plaintiff the right to develop factual records on questions traditionally reserved for juries. Chen's use of judicial notice transforms regulatory filings from compliance documentation into litigation weapons. Corporate defendants can now attach their own permits and emission reports to motions to dismiss, arguing these documents establish liability notice regardless of content or interpretation complexity. Chen's reasoning would also eliminate discovery rule protection for anyone living near industrial facilities. This circumvents normal discovery processes where federal agencies could provide context about regulatory compliance, violations, and enforcement priorities. The procedure denies federal prosecutors potential cooperation from private litigants who might develop evidence useful in criminal enforcement actions. By cutting off civil discovery, Chen's approach limits the factual development that often supports federal prosecutions. Worse, he made this decision while knowing the US EPA was investigating Apple's activities at this site and he also refused to take notice of the plaintiff's request for Judicial Notice with those federal public records. Chen identified that CERCLA § 9658 preempts state discovery rules for toxic exposure cases. However, his application fundamentally misinterprets federal policy. The provision exists to ensure adequate time for complex environmental investigations; not to accelerate dismissals based on industrial permit availability. Chen's reasoning converts federal preemption from a plaintiff protection into a corporate shield, inverting Congressional intent to provide adequate investigation time for environmental claims. Chen's implicit reasoning also creates discriminatory limitation periods based on technical knowledge. This is a particularly problematic precedent for environmental enforcement. This professional expertise penalty would deter environmental professionals from residing near industrial areas and discourage the technical knowledge crucial for environmental enforcement. Under this framework:
Chen also applied the 2-year toxic exposure statute (§ 340.8) while completely ignoring the 3-year property damage statute (§ 338(b)) that would have protected Gjovik's property damage claims. This selective statute application demonstrates systematic bias toward the shortest possible limitations period and is not supported by existing law or public policy. Further, Chen entertained Apple's successive motion based on speculative "judicial economy" concerns arising out of the expectation that Apple would engage in Rambo litigation. Chen even acknowledged that Rule 12(g)(2) "does lend support to Ms. Gjovik's position," but proceeded anyways. This reasoning nullifies Rule 12(g)(2) entirely by allowing defendants to always claim future filing opportunities, and to reward them for litigation misconduct. He further justified his actions post hoc by claiming he was able to find more claims he could dismiss at his discretion (not on the merits), which is not the legal standard. The plaintiff objected to these issues, and catastrophic legal implications, in her filings and during oral arguments. Apple's legal counsel consisted exclusively of Big Law employment litigation defense counsel, including multiple partners specialized in defending large corporations from retaliation and discrimination claims, and did not include any environmental attorneys. Apple's counsel also affirmatively told the court that Apple was not under investigation for environmental issues at the site, when Apple was under active US EPA investigation and enforcement. The impact of Chen's decision specifically eliminates the discovery rule for private tort remedies and incentivizes defendants to engage in criminal obstruction until the statute of limitations expires. This also creates a bifurcated enforcement system where, upon successful concealment by the defendant, environmental violations can only be addressed through federal citizen suit mechanisms with limited injunctive relief, not through state tort law with damages liability. This bifurcation reduces deterrent effects by eliminating corporate financial liability while preserving only prospective equitable remedies, and requiring uncompensated labor by victims to enforce and obtain financial penalties to be charged against wrong-doers, but only paid to the U.S. Treasury. Judge Chen also dismissed the plaintiff's environmental tort claims as time-barred while simultaneously allowing her crime victim retaliation claims to proceed, while both are based on the overlapping and related misconduct by Apple Inc. The same judge who created multiple unconstitutional loopholes to shield Apple from tort liability also found that Apple's conduct appeared to present a strong enough case for criminal charges, as to support Labor Code protections for crime victims arising out of the same facts. At the same time, Chen also refused to acknowledge plaintiff's arguments that during the same time period that Apple claims she should have discovered their activities, Apple was actively retaliating against her, engaged in criminal witness intimidation and tampering, attempted to coerce her into an undervalued settlement of all claims while concealing what they did to her and prior to firing her, Apple made false and misleading statements to her and the government about their activities at the facility, and that she has inherent claims to crime victim restitution regardless of the form of the cause of action. Chen did not even address these arguments and his decision implies that even if an employee is a victim of criminal environmental conduct by their employer, that employer can avoid claims about the underlying harms through otherwise criminal retaliation, harassment, and obstruction in order to conceal their misconduct until the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit's repeated refusal to review final judgments on these dismissed environmental claims also violates established appellate jurisdiction principles while creating complete procedural blockade for pro se crime victims. Constitutional violations become unreviewable while precedent harmful to private environmental rights becomes entrenched. This appellate denial particularly harms federal enforcement interests by preventing correction of decisions that undermine private environmental rights that complement federal enforcement capabilities. Chen's framework provides corporate defendants with a replicable strategy for escaping environmental liability, even if they did not engage in the same earlier criminal conduct and cover-up that Apple did:
Federal agencies should clarify that regulatory filing availability does not create immunity from private tort liability for environmental violations. EPA should issue guidance clarifying that citizen investigation and complaint processes support federal enforcement authority, and that the federal discovery rule preempts Chen's rogue decision. Federal prosecutors should also prioritize cases involving facilities where citizen complaints have been dismissed under similar reasoning to demonstrate federal commitment to environmental protection. ENRD should consider amicus briefing in any future cases or appeals under Chen's theories, in order to clarify federal enforcement priorities and preemption scope. Gjovik v. Apple Inc. represents systematic judicial nullification of private environmental rights through Apple's procedural manipulation. Chen's framework threatens to eliminate tolling for private tort liability and serves as a warning that a well-resourced defendant's sophisticated and malicious case management strategy can sabotage entire statutes. Federal intervention is necessary to prevent this precedent from destroying private environmental remedies that support broader enforcement goals, to provide essential deterrent effects against corporate environmental violations, and to hold Apple and their counsel accountable for making these bad faith arguments and obstructing an appeal that could have corrected this untenable and catastrophic outcome. -Ashley Published: August 24 2025 Today, I’m proud to share the launch of Silentium Fractum, the first issue of The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance — a self-published, open-access academic journal that documents how powerful institutions weaponize legal systems, and how those systems can be tactically resisted. This issue emerges directly from my experience confronting Apple Inc. in ongoing federal litigation and regulatory proceedings. Copies of the journal and individual articles are linked below. The full journal is open access and permanently archived here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15524514 The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance, Volume 1, Issue 1: Silentium Fractum (Summer 2025) The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance is an independent, interdisciplinary academic journal dedicated to the analysis of corporate power, legal systems, institutional violence, and tactical resistance. The journal’s mission is to dissect the structures that enable unaccountable authority — and to publish work that equips readers to confront and dismantle those systems. It exists to provide a forum for documenting how institutions exercise power through design, process, and doctrine—and how that power may be resisted, challenged, or exposed. It prioritizes work that bridges theory and praxis, drawing from law, ethics, philosophy, and lived experience. It rejects complicity with oppressive systems and embrace intellectual insurgency. Our focus spans corporate law, political philosophy, and ethics, examining how structural power perpetuates itself and how individuals and movements disrupt these systems. This journal takes as its premise that law and policy do not operate in a vacuum. They are structured systems embedded with assumptions, incentives, and political compromises that shape how truth is constructed, whose voices are heard, and which harms are made legible. Too often, the architecture of rights and remedies serves to shield institutional actors from accountability, rather than expose or rectify misconduct. This journal aims to document, analyze, and challenge the mechanisms by which systems of power are maintained—particularly through procedural obstruction, administrative evasion, retaliatory suppression, and narrative control. It welcomes work that crosses traditional boundaries: legal analysis informed by ethics and human rights; case studies grounded in lived experience; structural critiques sharpened by theory; and tactical frameworks developed through practice. This journal is a project in public reasoning, democratic accountability, and epistemic clarity. I publish in the belief that documentation itself is a form of resistance, and that naming the design is a necessary first step toward its deconstruction. I believe that resistance requires documentation—and that truth, when carefully and publicly recorded, can outlast obstruction. Volume 1, Issue 1 – Silentium Fractum focuses on the misuse of process: how litigation, regulatory procedure, and institutional policy are used to conceal wrongdoing and suppress dissent. The articles in this issue trace the contours of procedural violence, but also explore the tactical spaces within which truth may still be documented, preserved, and eventually heard. Together, these articles form an indictment of how systems designed for justice are repurposed to protect power. These articles also offer counter-possibilities: that occupation of the system, with documentation, narration, and resistance within formal processes, has the potential to crack illusions of neutrality. Our motto, nulli di, nulli domini, declares “no gods, no masters.” We believe systems of power are not inevitable. These systems are constructed — and anything constructed can be deconstructed. Welcome to The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance. Read the first Issue of the Journal: “The Journal of Structural Power & Resistance." Read the individual articles:
First published: May 26 2025. | Additional Links: OSF. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.15524514. |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
April 2026
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed