2025-04-28 Apple Just Tried to Rewrite My Employment Contract. Here's Why That Matters.

📁 NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428 | 📁 Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC

​Today, I formally notified Apple’s NLRB and civil litigation attorneys that I object to their latest stunt: attempting to unilaterally modify my employment contract — specifically, my Confidentiality & IP Agreement — under the guise of "compliance" with a labor law settlement.

Let me be very clear: in the United States, contract revisions require mutual agreement. That’s black-letter law.

In California, under state contract law (see Secrest v. Security Nat’l Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544), any modification to a written agreement must be supported by new consideration — and in many cases, must be memorialized in writing and signed by both parties. Even under federal common law, courts have held that unilateral post-termination modifications to employment contracts are invalid unless voluntarily agreed upon by the former employee (Roth v. Mims, 92 F.3d 1108 (11th Cir. 1996)).

As readers know, I recently prevailed in a major case before the National Labor Relations Board, which forced Apple to rescind dozens of policies that violated the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 157). The company was ordered to revise internal rules, clarify employee rights, and submit formal proof of compliance — including in my own case.

However, instead of correcting their prior illegal behavior and moving forward in good faith, on Friday April 25 2025, Apple sent me a late-night letter with newly reworded contract terms — including brand-new confidentiality obligations, post-termination disclosure duties, and even compelled notification clauses that didn't exist in the original agreement.

• They cc’d the NLRB.
• They didn’t cc their civil litigation team.
• They didn’t include any explanation of my rights.
• They didn’t offer to meet or confer.
• They didn’t even address me directly.

Why This Matters for Workers Everywhere

This isn’t just about me. This is a textbook corporate tactic: "We were forced to stop breaking the law… so now we’re going to sneak new language into old agreements and hope no one notices."

If your employer settles a labor case and then sends you a “policy update,” read it carefully. Look for changes that expand your obligations, especially after termination. Check for:

• New language about confidentiality, loyalty, or disclosure;
• Changes that apply retroactively or indefinitely;
• Clauses that conflict with your statutory rights under the NLRA, state whistleblower laws, or First Amendment protections.

The Law Is Clear

• The NLRA does not authorize companies to impose new obligations on employees or former employees as part of a settlement. It allows for rescission of illegal policies — not rewriting history.
• California employees generally retain full rights under state law, including California Labor Code §§ 232, 1102.5, and 1197.5, even after termination.
• Companies cannot bypass whistleblower laws, anti-retaliation protections, or constitutional limits by rebranding old contract terms as “revisions.”

What I Filed Today

I submitted a formal legal memorandum rejecting Apple’s proposed changes, citing contract law, labor law, and constitutional doctrine. I also demanded that Apple comply with its remaining NLRB settlement obligations — including providing a full explanation of rights, assurances of non-retaliation, and a good faith opportunity to negotiate.

You can read the Memorandum here:
📄 gjovik_v_apple_-_nlrb_contract_amendment_request_-_final_certified.pdf

⚠️ Worker Alert
​
If you’ve been offered a “revised” contract or policy following a labor dispute or settlement:

• Don’t sign or accept anything without review.
• Ask what changed, why, and whether the changes apply to you.
• Talk to a lawyer about your situation, at least a free consultation.
• Assert your right to negotiate — especially if you’re no longer employed.

This isn’t just about legal theory — it’s about power. Companies will always try to recover what they were forced to give up. Stay vigilant, & stay organized. 

-Ashley M. Gjovik, J.D.

Note: This is not legal advice. Please consult a licensed attorney for legal advice on your specific situation. 

--
📨 Contact: [email protected]
📚 More resources: ashleygjovik.com/blog

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.