04/15/2025 - New Filing: Notice of Pendency – National Labor Relations Board Settlement with Apple

Today I filed a Notice of Pendency in my federal case against Apple, informing the court that Apple recently entered into a final, enforceable settlement agreement with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case arising from some of the same facts at issue in my lawsuit — including Apple’s confidentiality policies, surveillance practices, and treatment of employee speech.

The agreement was signed by Apple on March 25, 2025, and formally approved by the NLRB on April 4, 2025. The settlement includes:

• Rescission and revision of Apple’s internal confidentiality agreements and employment policies;
• A federal notice posting requirement — on both its internal systems and a public site — acknowledging that Apple previously maintained unlawful rules;
• Compliance certification directly involving me as the charging party.

All of these terms are now subject to federal oversight and compliance enforcement.

In my case, Apple continues to defend the same policies and practices that the federal government just forced it to revise. It also continues to insist that these policies are lawful — while simultaneously complying with a settlement that says otherwise. The overlap between these two proceedings is more than procedural. It's a matter of credibility, transparency, and accountability — especially given that Apple didn’t disclose the settlement in its most recent filings, despite being under a legal obligation to comply with its terms.

What This Means for Apple Workers — and Their Lawyers

Apple's federal settlement with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) doesn’t just check a box for compliance — it fundamentally shifts the ground beneath every retaliation case involving Apple’s internal policies. Here's how it works:

• Apple’s Playbook for Firing Workers
  • When Apple fires an employee who engages in protected activity — like reporting misconduct, speaking out about safety, or discussing working conditions — it usually claims the employee violated some internal rule or breached a confidentiality agreement.
  • This lets Apple avoid saying it fired someone for whistleblowing. Instead, they say: “We didn’t retaliate. They violated the IPA, or confidentiality policy, or NDA, etc.”
• The Legal Standard in Retaliation Cases
  
  • In court, Apple doesn’t have to prove its policies were lawful under every law on the books. It only has to convince a judge or jury that it fired the worker for a legitimate reason — not for retaliation.
    
  • So even if a policy violated labor law (like the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employee speech), a court handling a separate claim (like an EEOC or ADA claim) might not care — unless that violation is directly tied to the claim at hand.
• Now Comes the Game-Changer
  
  • Under this new NLRB settlement, Apple has been required to:
    • Rescind dozens of specific rules and policies,
    • Withdraw the language they relied on,
    • Notify all employees,
    • And certify compliance under federal oversight.
  • The result? Apple can’t legally rely on any of the withdrawn policies in any litigation — including civil suits.
• Why That Changes Everything
  
  • This means that going forward:
    • Apple cannot argue that it fired someone for violating a policy that no longer exists or has been officially disavowed.
    • Plaintiffs can now point to the NLRB settlement as binding proof that the policy Apple cited was not legitimate.
    • Apple’s standard defense — “We had a policy, and they broke it” — is now substantially weaker in a wide array of retaliation, wrongful termination, and whistleblower cases.
• This Isn’t Just Procedural — It’s Strategic
  
  • If you’re an attorney handling employment litigation against Apple, this settlement isn’t just background noise. It’s Exhibit A. It puts you in a position to:
    • Challenge Apple’s justifications at summary judgment;
    • Undermine their credibility in depositions and cross-examination;
    • And demonstrate that their “legitimate business reasons” are no longer legally sustainable.

TL;DR: Apple can’t fire someone for breaking a rule it was just forced to withdraw — and now, that’s on the federal record.
​
This notice places the NLRB settlement on the record, along with supporting exhibits, including:

• The full settlement agreement,
• The Notice to Employees Apple is required to distribute,
• And the federal compliance instructions detailing Apple’s obligations.

​I filed the notice under Local Rule 3-13, which allows parties to notify the court of related proceedings that may impact the case. I’m not asking the court to rule on the NLRB settlement at this point — only to take notice of it. But the relevance is clear. Apple is trying to defend its actions in this case while revising them under federal order in another.

This kind of contradiction matters — not just for me, but for anyone watching how corporations respond when accountability is no longer optional.

--
📚 Filed: U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. – Dkt. 203 in Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
​📄 Read the full court filing (Dkt. 203)
💬 Questions or media inquiries? Reach me at [email protected]