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. 1. (a) The original charge in Case 32-CA-282142 was filed by the Charging Party on August 26, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on August 30, 2021. (b) The amended charge in Case 32-CA-282142 was filed by the Charging Party on April 1, 2022, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on April 4, 2022. (c) The charge in Case 32-CA-283161 was filed by the Charging Party on September 16, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on September 20, 2021. 2. (a) At all times, Respondent, a California corporation with a headquarters at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California has retail facilities throughout the United States, has been engaged in the development, manufacture, and retail sale of consumer electronics and software. (b) Annually, in the course and conduct of its operations, Respondent derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received at its California facilities products, goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of California. 3. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 4. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Jenna Waibel Corporate Employee Relations Representative David Powers Software Development Engineering Director Ekelemchi Okpo Corporate Employee Relations Representative 5. About March 22, 2021, Respondent, by David Powers, by telephone: (a) Directed employees to refrain from talking about workplace environmental health and safety concerns with other employees. (b) Impliedly threatened employees with discipline by telling employees that the instruction to refrain from talking about workplace environmental health and safety concerns with other employees, was a warning. 6. About April 27, 2021, Respondent, by Jenna Waibel: (a) By telephone, told employees to use the following five-point balancing test in advance of communicating workplace health and safety concerns to other employees: o make sure the information is complete o make sure the information is accurate o that it does not cause panic o that it does not make an assessment about safety; and o that people talk to the Employer’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) department directly. (b) By email, told employees that when discussing terms and conditions of employment, they should ensure that the information shared was as accurate and complete as possible. (c) By email, told employees to refrain from discussing their terms and conditions of employment by telling employees to first communicate their workplace health and safety concerns directly with Respondent. 7. Respondent, by Ekelemchi Okpo: (a) About August 4, 2021, during a video meeting, directed employees not to talk to other employees about Respondent’s investigation of employees’ workplace health and safety concerns. (b) About August 4, 2021, by email, told employees to refrain from sharing communications about Respondent’s investigation into employees’ workplace health and safety concerns. (c) About August 5, 2021, by email, told employees that he was “disappointed” that they “misrepresented” their discussion on August 4, 2021. 8. (a) From about March 22, 2021, to about September 2021, Respondent’s employee Gjøvik concertedly complained to Respondent regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions of Respondent’s employees, by inter alia, raising workplace environmental health and safety concerns. (b) From about June 2021, to about September 2021, Respondent’s employee Gjøvik engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of mutual aid and protection, by, inter alia, circulating a petition amongst employees regarding return-to-work concerns, talking to newspaper outlets about employees’ workplace complaints and concerns, posting about workplace complaints and concerns on social media as well as on Respondent’s Slack channel platform. (c) About August 4, 2021, Respondent suspended its employee Gjøvik. (d) About September 9, 2021, Respondent discharged its employee Gjøvik. (e) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(c) and 8(d), because Gjøvik engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b), and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities. 9. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5 through 8 Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 10. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above in paragraphs 5 through 8, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) physically and electronically post the Notice to Employees at all its facilities including, but not limited to, posting on Respondent-sponsored Slack communication channels, intranet portals, and by email; (2) email a copy of the Notice to Employees to all its supervisors and managers; (3) physically and electronically post the Employee Rights Notice poster in the same manner as the posting of the Notice to Employees; (4) have a Board Agent conduct a training session for its managers and supervisors on their obligations under the Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director); and (5) have a Board Agent conduct a training session for its employees on their rights under the Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director). WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above in paragraph 8 the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) offer employee Gjøvik reinstatement to her former job position or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed; (2) send a letter to Gjøvik apologizing for suspending and terminating her, expunge all Respondent’s records of such suspension and termination, and inform her, in writing, that her suspension and termination have been expunged from Respondent’s records and will not be used against her in any way; (3) make employee Gjøvik whole for all losses incurred as a result of the unfair labor practices described above, including for all direct and foreseeable pecuniary harm incurred as a result of her unlawful suspension an termination; and (4) should Gjøvik waive reinstatement, provide a neutral job reference to all prospective employers with the correct job titles and positions of employee Gjøvik. The General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.
0 Comments
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." On June 21 2024, the US EPA released an enforcement report with 18 exhibits, that confirmed Apple Inc is operating an unpermitted *semiconductor fabrication* facility in one of the busiest and most trafficked areas in the city of Santa Clara, California.
The report, along with Apple's own regulatory filings, confirmed this facility is emitting hazardous waste vapors, fumes, and gases into the outdoor air around the building. The report also confirmed that Apple is engaged in hazardous waste treatment and disposal, including these air emissions, without the permits, records, and monitoring required by federal law. This nondescript building sits directly across the street from high-density residential apartments (Santa Clara Square), and a variety of commercial buildings including, but not limited to: a Whole Foods grocery store, several restaurants with outdoor patios, and a yoga studio. There is also a school within 1,000 feet, and two public parks within 200 feet of this factory. Back in February 2023, through my own research, I discovered that Apple was doing silicon fab at the facility. I spent several months researching further, gathering records, speaking with agencies, and drafting a formal complaint. Because of all of the evidence and information I gathered, I was able to successfully trigger a US EPA RCRA Compliance & Enforcement investigation, which then led to at least three on site inspections, as described in the report. US EPA found at least *19* unique violations of RCRA during these inspections. Semiconductor fab is one of the most dangerous types of manufacturing in history; for the workers inside the plant, and also for the people and environment outside the plant. I became seriously ill while living at the Santa Clara Square apartments several years ago - and the illness was diagnosed by chemical exposure doctors as exposure to industrial chemicals from an unknown source. I went public about it, and additional victims promptly came forward. But the government could not figure out where the chemicals were coming from. Its clear now what the source was. Its unclear how many people were exposed and injured by Apple's illegal manufacturing operations. I am lobbying for involvement from the Dept of Public Health to investigate the extent of the damage Apple has caused to probably thousands of human lives. There is also a question of harm to environment, and harm to the properties of all of the homes and small businesses surrounding this factory. I feel very proud and relieved that all of my hard work from 2020 to 2023 investigating the chemical hazards in that area resulted in so much action from the government, and identified such a dangerous situation that required intervention - but there is still a lot of work to be done. The US EPA RCRA Inspection report and all of its exhibits are available via my Dropbox. There's also a few social media threads about the report: - Twitter @ashleygjovik - Mastodon @ashleygjovik - BlueSky @ashleygjovik On May 20 2022 the US Court in the Northern District of California, SF Division, issued a ruling allowing eight of my legal claims against Apple Inc to proceed. Apple had filed a Motion to Dismiss some of my claims (allowing some to stay) and the US Judge only granted Apple's motion for two claims, but allowed eight claims to proceed and provided me leave to amend another seven claims.
The US Judge ok'd the following claims to go forward: Nuisance (toxic tort for silicon fab emissions), Ultrahazardous activities (same), Breach of Good Faith & Fair Dealing, Tamney claim (termination in violation of public policy), Cal. Labor Code § 98.6 (retaliation for labor complaints), § 6310 (retaliation for safety complaints), Cal. B&P Code § 17200 (unfair business practices - injunctive relief against Apple over Gobbler and other user studies), and IIED (fear of cancer due to chemical exposure). He also granted leave to amend for: RICO 1962(c) and (d), Bane Act, Ralph Act, NIED, Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5, and breach of implied contract (making me no longer an at will employee and can only be fired for cause) -- and also leave to amend to add additional allegations within some of the claims above. I have until June 17 to file the updated complaint and then Apple has until July 15 2024 to respond. A Pro Se plaintiff walking out of federal court, in a lawsuit against one of the most powerful companies in the world, after a motion to dismiss, with EIGHT claims intact, and another SEVEN claims which could still be added (so, potentially a total of fifteen viable claims), is extremely unusual. The Judge also allowing leave to amend a RICO claim by a pro se plaintiff is also very unusual - leave to amend is only granted if its possible the claim could be plausible. I'm pleased with the decision and grateful to finally get my day in court. The docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ The complaint is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.47.0.pdf The decision is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.73.0.pdf |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|
||||||||||||||||||
RSS Feed