Major Legal Victory in My Lawsuit Against AppleI’m excited to share a significant legal victory in my lawsuit against Apple Inc. On Feb. 27 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a ruling allowing numerous retaliation claims and labor law violations to move forward, including claims under California whistleblower laws, workplace safety statutes, and employment retaliation protections. The court also confirmed that I can seek special damages (penalties) for many of these claims—an uncommon decision for an individual lawsuit. You can read the full decision here: Court Decision Historic First: Crime Victim Retaliation Claim Moves ForwardIn a landmark decision, the court ruled that my retaliation claim under California’s Crime Victim Protections (Labor Code § 230(e)) can proceed. This could be the first lawsuit to successfully invoke crime victim protections in a workplace retaliation case. The Crime: Apple’s Environmental Violations Nearly Killed Me At the core of this claim is Apple’s secret semiconductor fabrication facility in Santa Clara, CA. The facility illegally vented hazardous and carcinogenic chemicals into the air near my apartment in 2020, causing severe health issues that nearly killed me. I later discovered that Apple was responsible and had actively concealed its involvement. When I reported the exposure and began advocating for environmental justice, Apple retaliated against me. They placed me under surveillance, harassed me, obstructed my career, and ultimately fired me. The California Crime Victims laws protect employees from retaliation for reporting violent crimes or cooperating with authorities regarding violent crimes. My case is one of the first to argue that environmental crimes—especially those that endanger human life—fall under these protections. California law recognizes that workplace safety and environmental violations can be criminal offenses (Cal. Penal Code § 387, 6423; Health & Safety Code §§ 42400.3, 42400.5). My argument was simple: Apple nearly killed me, I fought back, and they retaliated against me for it. The court agreed that I have a viable claim. Unprecedented: Court Allows Special Damages for Labor Law Violations
0 Comments
On Jan. 31 2025, I filed two motions.
First I requested permission to replead a number of my claims with newly discovered evidence, including RICO Act, Bane Act, Ralph Act, & Dodd Frank Act. Second, I moved to disqualify Apple's law firm, Orrick, due to a number of conflicts of interest and ethical issues. The full docket (here) has links to the memos, motions, and exhibits. 12/18/2024 - NLRB Filed a Complaint Against Apple for Illegally Suspending & Firing Me in 202112/18/2024 Status: NLRB filed a complaint against Apple on Dec. 18 2024. The case is tracked under:
The Dec. 18 2024 complaint: 
APPLE INC. and Cases 32-CA-282142 32-CA-283161
ASHLEY MARIE GJØVIK, an Individual ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cases 32- CA-282142 and 32-CA-283161, filed by Ashley Marie Gjøvik , an Individual (Gjøvik or Charging Party) against Apple, Inc. (Respondent) are consolidated. This Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, which is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, and alleges Respondent has violated the Act as described below. I had asked the Judge to stay the next amended complaint until the appeal concludes, as I will likely need to re-do and un-do much of the work after the appellate court issues an order. The judge denied my request and said I still have to amend my complaint per his prior decision. I filed the Fifth Amended Complaint on Nov. 7 2024, but made sure I complained about it. You can read it here. Fifth Amended Complaint:
On October 23 2024, I filed a Motion to Stay the district court proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. You can read that motion here. The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19 2024. However, instead of responding in a normal way, on Nov. 6 2024, Apple filed a one and half page response unilaterally declaring the appeal is dismissed and accusing me of improper conduct. You can read their filing here. I needed to file something anyways to apologize for missing my deadline on the amended complaint, so I also took the opportunity to clarify that the appeal is still pending to ask for the millionth time that Apple stop harassing me. You can read that filing here. Motion to Stay:
Apple had filed an opposition to my appeal of the U.S. Dept. of Labor toxic waste whistleblower case & reading Apple's response, and having to respond to it, was just as enjoyable as stabbing pencils into my eyes. You can read that here. I filed my Reply to U.S. Dept. of Labor on Nov. 6 2024, cutting it close at literally midnight - but getting it in. US Dept. of Labor accepted it later that day. U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB appellate reply:
 On Oct. 25 2024, the Judge in the civil lawsuit issued an Order responding to my "am I still in trouble?" motion. He said I can still attend Zoom hearings & his order acknowledges there were internet issues at the last hearing. Read the order here. The motion I filed is here.
The District Court Judge issued an Order responding to my request for an extension to file my amended complaint (until after he rules on the Motion to Stay) and if not to increase the page limit. He denied my request for both, but then gave me a week extension any ways. His comments about the appeal seem fair, they are uncommon. Read the order here. The motion I filed is here. On October 18 2024, Apple filed an Answer in response to the NLRB Complaint alleging Apple's NDAs and work policies violate federal labor laws. Apple's defense is basically that Apple Inc is a person, and as a person, Apple Inc has a first amendment right to harass its employees. The Answer is posted to the NLRB webpage for the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284428 The NLRB Hearing is scheduled for Jan. 22 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
10/15/2024 - NLRB finds merit in Ashley's charges of unfair labor practices & retaliation10/15/2024 On Oct. 15 2024, NLRB finally made a decision on my 2021 unfair labor practice charges against Apple! If Apple doesn't settle with NLRB asap, NLRB is filing a complaint against Apple, alleging that Apple violated the NLRA at least ten times with me specifically. A complaint would be issued in 1-2 weeks, a formal trial would be scheduled, & Apple would have to try to explain to a judge why it thinks what it did to me is fine, actually. The NLRB found Apple violated federal labor law when it put me on leave on 8/4/21, fired me on 9/9/21, & in at least 8 statements made to me starting in March 2021 with: don't talk to your coworkers about safety or Superfund sites. Apple Employee Relation's 5-point balancing test (to use if I think I want to talk to my coworkers about safety or toxic waste dumps) is also featured. I could've bickered with them about twice as many additional charges & probably got most if I pushed on it, but it'd delay things for another six months or more, so 10 ULPs is good enough. If you're new to this toxic waste fiasco & catching up on the last three years, I did make a PowerPoint presentation about much of it for this year's LaborFest. (below) You can also learn more about HAZWOPER worker rights here: HAZWOPER & HAZCOM Reading Room On Oct. 4 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals docketed my Gjovik v Apple case and issued a scheduling order.
Docket Number: 24-6058
Originating Case Number: 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Short Title: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. Ashley M. Gjovik Appeal Opening Brief: November 13, 2024 Apple Inc. Appeal Answering Brief: December 13, 2024 On October 3 2024, the NLRB filed a corrected version of the Complaint for the hearing announced on Sept. 27 2024. Due to the amendment, the deadline for Apple to respond to the complaint is now October 17 2024. Link: Corrected NLRB Complaint Link: Original NLRB Complaint The NLRB case page is here: https://nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284428  "...Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to the corrected complaint. The answer must be electronically filed with this office on or before Thursday, October 17, 2024. Respondent also must serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties....
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on January 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at the National Labor Relations Board, Region 21, 312 N. Spring Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, and on consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this complaint..." * from NLRB's Complaint On October 1 2024, the US Court issued a decision in my civil lawsuit, in response to Apple's fourth Motion to Dismiss and third motion to strike. The Court approved six of my claims (including many sub-claims) to move forward to discovery. This includes: Tamney termination in violation of public policy, California Whistleblower Protection Act § 1102.5, Cal. Labor Code §§ 6310 (retaliation for safety activities), 98.6 (retaliation for labor complaints), 232.5 (retaliation for talking about work conditions), and 96k (retaliation for exercising constitutional rights, in furtherance of the labor code, outside of work hours and not on work property). The prior May 20 2024 decision had dismissed the Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 claim entirely but with leave to amend, it was amended, and based on those amendments, in the Oct. 1 2024 decision, six different categories of complaints of unlawful activity were expressly approved to move forward to discovery:
In addition, four claims (Cal. Labor Code § 232, private nuisance, IIED-Cancer, & IIED-Outrage) and two requests for penalties (§§ 98.6 & 1102.5) were dismissed with leave to amend. If all amendments were approved, this would raise the total of active claims to ten individual claims from a pro se plaintiff against a corporation following the corporation filing five motions to dismiss. The requested penalties are part of a much larger request for damages, and the only issue to be amended is the statute of limitations tolling theory, of which the Court approved. Similarly, private nuisance is only dismissed due to statute of limitations tolling and the Court already approved my theory of tolling for all the toxic torts. The IIED-Cancer claim was dismissed due to the same statute of limitations request, and also on the merits of intent (though this was a misunderstanding by the Court of the intent required for this tort). Finally, the IIED-Outrage claim was also dismissed with leave to amend, only requesting more details on dates, times, and events. While it was a huge victory to have six claims approved to move forward to discovery and another four claims granted leave to amend following so many challenges from Apple, the remainder of the decision included several highly prejudicial dismissals based on abuse of discretion and clear error. Many of the claims were dismissed with prejudice (either due to abuse of discretion, or on a clearly erroneous basis), were also important claims for this litigation and it is highly disfavored to dismiss with prejudice any claims that may have merit, as that is essentially removing any remedy for harm even if the evidence later substantiates that claim. Some of the claims dismissed with prejudice already have evidence showing a nexus with the retaliation. Several of the dismissals with prejudice are important to me enough that I would appeal these dismissals at the end of the case anyways, which could require re-doing the whole trial afterwards. The court asked me to plead several areas that I did plead already in my Second Amended Complaint, and in the rejected surreply brief thing - but he's insisting they be formally added to the complaint. The statute of limitations tolling facts, IIED facts, and retaliation for talking about pay is probably 15-20 pages of additional pleading. In addition, the Court told me I'm not allowed to 'amend' any part of the existing complaint other than what he expressly gave me permission to, but that I also have to keep the complaint at a max of 75 pages. The current complaint is 74 pages. Further, the only way I could have room to plead these claims is if I surrender to his dismissal with prejudice of ultrahazardous activities, Right to Know retaliation, and unfair business practices claims - which could make it much more difficult, or impossible, to appeal later. Finally, for at least one of the claims (IIED-Cancer) he told me I can amend but then essentially threatened me with sanctions if I try to amend - which coerces me to withdraw that claim and I probably would not be able to appeal it later.  Because of all of this, I filed a Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 1 2024. The case was docketed and a scheduling order for briefs was issued. I will need to convince the appeals court to accept an interlocutory appeal, but I feel confident I can - due to how many claims were dismissed with prejudice due to purely procedural and discretionary decisions, as well as an admitted deviation from the Fed. Rules of Civ. Procedure.
In addition to some other non-claim-specific procedural issues, the appeal will focus on the dismissal of the entire claim, with prejudice, of: ultrahazardous activities, the breach of good faith and fair dealing, California Unfair Business Practice Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102 via 232.5 (retaliation for political activities related to the workplace), and §§ 6399.7 via 6310 (retaliation for Right to Know activities). The appeal will also focus on the dismissal with prejudice of portions of larger claims that were still approved to move forward and/or amend, but without the subclaim, including: reporting violations of smuggling and sanctions laws under § 1102.5; reporting violations of the constitutional right to privacy specific to Gobbler under § 1102.5; reporting violations of substantive portions of the CERCLA, RCRA, and CAA; and the dismissal with prejudice of the defamation portion of the IIED-Outrage claim. Further, in addition to dismissing the §§ 1101 and 1102 claims, it appears the Court has removed any claims related to the occupation of Palestine, Muslim human rights, and Uyghur forced labor from all claims - which will also be appealed. Link: Gjovik v Apple - Oct. 1 2024 Decision Link: Notice of Appeal Link: 9th Circuit Docketing Notice & Scheduling Order It's official! My U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB appellate brief was accepted! You can read the final Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, Superfund whistleblower, appellate brief here.  In early October, the US EPA released the Five Year Report for the Superfund sites making up the "Triple Site" in Sunnyvale, California - including my Apple office. The report also includes my public comment! The 5 Year Reports are written by US Army Corps of Engineers & they usually have more backbone then US EPA. US Army included my concerns about "tenants in commercial buildings with existing vapor intrusion mitigation systems that have failed to maintain or damaged the systems." Army's technical summary of the status of the Superfund sites:
Apparently the environmental consultant for Philips confided in USACE that they have been bullied by two of the neighbors saying they are "difficult to work with" and "paved over" their groundwater monitoring wells. Well T8A is -> Apple Computer, of course. USACE advised EPA *4* times that Apple needs to do continuous monitoring of the vapor intrusion controls (Apple prob said 'we're done forever now'). The Army also ignored Apple's parkour-esque VI testing "plans" from 2021, and only reported the 2022+ QA plans approved by US EPA. US Army notes a few times that Apple & NGC need to test the outdoor air at my office to see if their plume is gassing the neighborhood. In 2019, EPA discovered the outdoor air had high TCE. The shallow toxic plumes may be evaporating into the air & poisoning the community. Cool. You can read the report here. [link]  On Sept. 27 2024, the NLRB issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing for my charge (32-CA-284428) against Apple In Oct 2021, I filed a NLRB charge against Apple, alleging that almost all of Apple's employee policies violate federal labor laws. In 2023, NLRB agreed; & yesterday, Sept. 27 2024, NLRB issued a Complaint & Notice of Hearing for Apple's first all-US-employee NLRB lawsuit. The NLRB is suing Apple over *nine* individual policies. The NLRB is suing Apple over its Intellectual Property Agreement, Business Conduct Policy, Workplace Searches & Privacy Policy, Misconduct & Discipline Policy, Social Media Policy - & more. Notably, this Complaint includes *all* policies Apple claimed I was fired for violating. The full NLRB Complaint is here. The NLRB case page is here: https://nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284428  I filed a complaint about Apple's stupid secret fab with the BAAQMD on July 22 2024. On August 29 2024, the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District published a formal notice of violations by Apple Inc of two violations of air pollution laws via their Skunkworks fab at 3250 Scott Blvd. Then on September 12 2024 (probably after an inspection?) BAAQMD cited Apple for four additional violations - 2-1-301 & 2-1-302 again, and also for "gaseous pollution." Apple apparently violated regulation 2-1-301 when it built/installed equipment that causes air pollution without first getting permission from BAAQMD; then violated -302 by operating the fab for around eight years without required permits. Then, Apple also violated 9-7-307.1 by dumping illegal amounts of NOx & CO into our air.
References: 9-7-300 STANDARDS
9-7-307 Final Emission Limits: No person shall operate a boiler, steam generator or process heater with a rated heat input listed in the table below that exceeds the corresponding NOx and CO emission limits on or after the... I filed a complaint about Apple's stupid secret fab with the BAAQMD on July 22 2024. On August 29 2024, the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District published formal notice of violations by Apple Inc of two violations of air pollution laws via their Skunkworks fab at 3250 Scott Blvd. BAAQMD cited Apple for violating local air regulations 2-1-301 & 2-1-302 with their stupid secret fab. References: Link: BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 1 - General Requirements Link: BAAQMD Notices of Violation
2-1-300 STANDARDS
2-1-301 Authority to Construct: Any person who, after July, 1972, puts in place, builds, erects, installs, modifies, modernizes, alters or replaces any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which may cause, reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first secure written authorization from the APCO in the form of an authority to construct. Routine repairs, maintenance, or cyclic maintenance that includes replacement of components with identical components is not considered to be an alteration, modification or replacement for the purpose of this Section unless the APCO determines the changes to be non-routine. The use or operation of the source shall initiate the start-up period in accordance with Section 2- 1-411. (Amended 3/17/82; 10/19/83; 7/17/91; 5/17/00) 2-1-302 Permit to Operate: Before any person, as described in Section 2-1-401, uses or operates any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which may cause, reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, such person shall first secure written authorization from the APCO in the form of a permit to operate. My request for appellate review by the US Dept of Labor's Admin Review Board was approved on August 27 2024, and the CERCLA whistleblower retaliation case is now docketed as Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, ARB-2024-0060, 2024-CER-00001.  The U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB also issued an Order formally approving the appeal request and issuing a briefing schedule. I filed a Notice of Pendency in the civil lawsuit for our Case Mgmt Conference tomorrow. You can read the full Order in the filing here.
The recording of my LaborFest 2024 talk about Apple, hazardous waste, semiconductor fab, & workplace safety is now posted! Check it out! From the YouTube description: "Apple in Santa Clara has illegally built a fabrication facility next to residential apartments in Santa Clara and has flagrantly violated EPA and other local and state regulations in the operation of this facility. Ashley M. Gjøvik is a former Apple senior engineering program manager who discovered that her office was above a contaminated dump site that was allowing fumes to enter the office and that her home was also located next to the illegal Apple fabrication facility that was contaminating the Santa Clara neighborhood. When she blew the whistle she was targeted and terrorized by Apple in order to shut her down. She is now fighting Apple in Federal Court and filed a RICO suit against Apple for its illegal activities. She also discovered that the oversight agencies which are supposed to protect her and the public have been captured by Apple and the corporations that they are supposed to be regulating. This presentation was made on July 21, 2024 as part of LaborFest.net which commemorates the 1934 San Francisco general strike during the month of July and was also sponsored by WorkWeek. I'm incredibly honored to have my semiconductor fab story spotlighted by Monroe Labs on the "Microsoft - A Materialist Approach" YouTube channel. Check it out! From the YouTube description: "In today’s video, we’ll take a detour from examining Microsoft’s activities to talk about Apple. Specifically, the health and legal struggles of Ashley Gjovik (whose name I mispronounced as Grovnik in this video), inflicted on her by Apple. We’ll also talk about the work Gjovik has been doing shining a light on the ecological and health impacts of Apple’s chip fabrication facilities which are little reported on. When most people think of Apple, what comes to mind is the image it has crafted for itself: ultra competence, austere efficiency, design excellence and echoes of the myth of California - progressive and open. Of course, Apple is a corporation and operates according to the rules of capitalist political economy and also, the power imperatives of capitalist enterprises - an imperial disdain for people’s lives because profit is uber alles. In June of 2024, Gjovik posted an overview of her experiences and findings on LinkedIn which I read for you. By the way, the music you’re hearing is from the album, Architect of Truth by Robert Beshara. The song is Whiplash. Link in the show description." |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
February 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed