02/27/2025 - Decision & Order in Gjovik v Apple

Major Legal Victory in My Lawsuit Against Apple

I’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 Forward

In 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 ​

Another major win in this decision is that the court is allowing special damages (penalties) for Apple’s labor law violations—something usually reserved for enforcement actions by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) or Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cases. This means that I, as an individual plaintiff, can seek penalties against Apple for violating whistleblower protections, workplace safety laws, and retaliation prohibitions.

This ruling could set an important precedent for future individual lawsuits against corporate employers. Traditionally, penalties for individual labor violations have been regarded as something the state would enforce, but this decision recognizes the right of individual employees to seek penalties when they have been harmed.

Bloomberg Law Covers the Decision

The ruling was covered by Bloomberg Law on Friday, highlighting the significance of this case. Apple now faces substantial legal liability for its retaliation and labor violations, and this case will continue to expose their misconduct.

Read the Bloomberg article here: Apple Faces Lawsuit Over Labor Violations

Apple Must Continue to Face California Worker’s Retaliation Suit
2025-02-28 19:10:02.822 GMT, By Daniel Seiden (Bloomberg Law)

A former Apple Inc. employee can move forward with claims that the company unlawfully terminated her in retaliation for complaints about environmentally unsafe conditions, a California federal court said. Ashley Gjovik, who previously worked at an Apple office in California, adequately alleged that Apple violated a state whistleblower law by firing her after she raised concerns about exposure to toxic substances from a Superfund site, Judge Edward M. Chen of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said in a Thursday order. Apple fired the senior engineering program manager in 2021 for what the company said was a violation of corporate policies. Before leaving the company, Gjovik filed complaints with state and federal agencies—including the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and National Labor Relations Board. She complained about violations of environmental laws and anti-retaliation provisions of environmental regulations, according to her complaint.. Gjovik’s case led to an investigation by the NLRB, which said that Apple executives violated workers’ rights by stopping employees from exercising their collective action rights She sued in September 2023, and filed a fifth amended complaint, alleging in part a violation of the California Whistleblower Act, in November 2024. The court previously said Gjovik filed this claim outside the one-year statute of limitations, but here said it could move forward under the doctrine of equitable tolling. Tolling applies here because Gjovik pursued legal remedies with California’s department of industrial relations, Chen said. That sufficiently put Apple on notice of Gjovik’s retaliation claims involving reporting of alleged environmental hazards, he said. But the court dismissed Gjovik’s other claims, including those alleging a private nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gjovik based those claims on an Apple semiconductor fabrication factory that allegedly released toxic chemicals near her apartment. These claims were untimely under the applicable two-year statute of limitations, the court said. It also dismissed a second intentional infliction of emotional distress claim alleging that Apple broke into her residence, and bugged and surveilled her. Those claims “are entirely speculative,” the court said. Gjovik represents herself. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP represents Apple. The case is Gjovik v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 23-cv-4597, 2/27/25.

Ninth Circuit Appeal Expands to Include Dismissed Claim

In addition to this major victory, I already have an appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. My existing appeal challenges the lower court’s prior rulings on injunctions, collateral orders, and procedural dismissals of several claims. With this latest decision, my Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Toxic Tort claims have now been dismissed with prejudice, meaning they are final and ripe for appeal. This allows me to expand my Ninth Circuit case to challenge the wrongful dismissal of those claims.

These claims are critical because they address Apple’s extreme and outrageous misconduct, including the severe emotional distress I suffered due to Apple’s retaliation, surveillance, harassment, and environmental exposure. The toxic tort claims also hold Apple accountable for the illegal semiconductor fabrication facility that led to my life-threatening chemical exposure in 2020.

This development strengthens my appeal and gives the Ninth Circuit the opportunity to review and overturn these dismissals, ensuring that all of my claims receive the full legal consideration they deserve. Stay tuned for more updates on the ongoing litigation at both the district court and appellate levels!

​Ninth Circuit Case Docket: Gjovik v Apple

What’s Next?

This ruling paves the way for trial and further discovery in my case. Apple has been fighting to shut this lawsuit down since day one, filing multiple motions to dismiss and attempting to block evidence. But with each step, the court has reaffirmed the strength of my claims.

As we move forward, I will continue advocating for:
- Corporate accountability for environmental crimes and workplace retaliation
- Stronger legal protections for whistleblowers and crime victims
- Justice for those harmed by Apple’s unlawful practices

I appreciate the support from everyone following this case! Stay tuned for more updates as we push forward.
🔹 Case Docket: CourtListener Docket
🔹 Read the Court Decision: PDF