📁 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

Update: I Just Filed Two Critical Motions Against Apple’s Answer — Here’s Why It Matters
📝 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-04597-EMC

After 18 months of stonewalling with five failed motions to dismiss, Apple finally answered my Fifth Amended Complaint. But instead of providing substantive responses, their Answer relied on boilerplate legal jargon, evasive denials, and outright refusals to acknowledge basic, documented facts — including public government records and Apple’s own prior statements.

In response, I filed two powerful motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

• Motion to Strike (Rule 12(f))
  
  • I moved to strike all of Apple’s legally insufficient and unsupported affirmative defenses. Many of these “defenses” weren’t defenses at all — just vague, scattershot legal terms like “waiver” or “after-acquired evidence” dropped in without context. In federal court, that's not how this works.
    
  • Courts require affirmative defenses to meet Twombly/Iqbal standards — that means real facts, real law, and real relevance. Apple’s didn’t come close.
    
• Motion for a More Definite Statement (Rule 12(e))
  
  • I also asked the Court to order Apple to clarify its noncommittal denials. In dozens of paragraphs, Apple used phrases like “no response required,” “the document speaks for itself,” or simply pretended not to know things the Court already discussed in orders or which are part of the public record — including:
    • NLRB merit findings,
    • EPA letters about toxic exposure,
    • Published articles quoting Apple reps.

A fair legal process requires both parties to admit what’s true, deny what’s not, and say “I don’t know” only when that’s really the case.

In complex litigation, the clarity of the pleadings isn’t optional — it’s foundational. Without it:

• I can’t plan and manage discovery efficiently;
• The court can’t focus on real issues;
• Apple gets unlimited freedom to shift explanations at will,
  
• And the public — especially in cases with whistleblower and environmental claims — can’t see what’s truly at stake.

These motions aren’t aggressive — they’re protective. They safeguard judicial resources, prevent litigation from devolving into gamesmanship, and force Apple to engage in the legal process in good faith.

Docket Update

• Dkt. 205: Motion for More Definite Statement – Reply
• Dkt. 206: Motion to Strike – Reply
• Dkt. 207: Reply re Judicial Notice
• Full docket: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. – NDCA

Litigation isn’t just about fighting — it’s about clarity, precision, and accountability. Apple’s Answer was none of those. These motions aim to fix that. I’ll share updates as the court rules. In the meantime, thank you to everyone following and supporting this journey toward corporate accountability and environmental justice.

— Ashley M. Gjovik
[email protected]
ashleygjovik.com

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]

Final compliance served. Notice must be posted. Employees now hold the enforcement power.

On April 14, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board formally served Apple Inc. with the finalized compliance documents in the matter of Gjovik v. Apple Inc., NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428. This includes the conformed bilateral settlement agreement, the compliance instructions, and the official Notice to Employees.

This means Apple’s legal obligations under the settlement formally begin today — including the requirement to post the Notice of Rights publicly for 60 consecutive days, both:

• Internally, on Apple’s People intranet
• Externally, on Apple’s public-facing legal notices page

The NLRB has set a firm deadline of April 28, 2025 for Apple to post the Notice and submit proof of compliance, including:

• A signed copy of the Notice
• Screenshots showing the Notice on the intranet
• Screenshots of the revised Confidential Information definitions
• A completed Certification of Posting form​

The Notice to Employees, approved by the NLRB and signed by Apple’s legal representatives, confirms that Apple:

• Rescinded unlawful employment policies that previously defined “confidential information” so broadly that employees were effectively barred from discussing wages, hours, and working conditions
• Acknowledged employees’ rights to organize, speak to the press, publish, or engage in protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act
• Affirmed revisions to its Confidentiality & IP Agreement, Social Media Policy, Business Conduct Policy, and more, to comply with federal labor law
• Cannot discipline employees for lawful conduct under Section 7 of the NLRA, including discussing pay, recording evidence of misconduct, or participating in NLRB investigations​​​​

This settlement marks the first time Apple has agreed to a nationwide NLRB posting of this kind. It was obtained after years of litigation, appeals, and public disclosures of Apple’s unlawful policies targeting whistleblowing, organizing, and transparency.

The Notice applies to all U.S.-based Apple employees — corporate, retail, hardware, software, operations, and contractors.

However, despite the agreement being signed on April 4, 2025, the final materials were not transmitted to Apple until April 14, after I filed a formal compliance challenge earlier that morning.  You are not required to wait passively for Apple to comply.

In my personal opinion, I think all Apple workers (including managers!) are entitled to:

• Print and share this Notice
• Post it in neutral workplace locations
• Upload it to internal systems under your control (e.g., Confluence profiles, team folders, Slack pins)
• Discuss its content freely with coworkers

These are federally protected rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Apple cannot lawfully prevent you from doing so.

If Apple fails to comply by April 28, or engages in retaliatory conduct, I have reserved the right to:

• Petition the NLRB for a supplemental complaint
• Request reissuance of the original complaint and default judgment
• File parallel complaints under Section 8(a)(4) of the Act
• Submit evidence to other federal bodies (e.g., Department of Labor, SEC).

Employees witnessing continued enforcement of voided policies, or experiencing retaliation for engaging in protected activity, should consider contacting the NLRB or legal counsel. You can also file a charge against Apple Inc online at any time at NLRB.gov

This is a win — but only if enforced.

Apple workers now hold a tool that can protect their speech, organizing, and dignity.
Use it wisely.

Download the Official Notice (PDF):  gjovik_v_apple_nlrb_caseno_32ca284428_notice_to_employees.pdf

Compliance Instructions from NLRB: gjovik_v_apple_-_nlrb_compliance_materials_combined.pdf

Today, I’m reporting on Apple’s latest procedural maneuvering in my ongoing appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unsurprisingly, Apple has filed a flurry of motions attempting to stall or dismiss my appeal, despite the Court already setting a briefing schedule and my case moving forward.

Apple filed:

• A Motion to Stay or Dismiss the Appeal, arguing that my appeal is "premature" because the district court has not yet ruled on Rule 54(b) certification​.
• Oppositions to my motions seeking clarification on the briefing schedule​.
• Opposition to my motion to consolidate my related appeals for efficiency​.

However, in my Omnibus Opposition filed today, I exposed Apple’s contradictory litigation strategy — and I want to share the highlights with you.

What Apple Is Arguing

Apple claims that:

• The Ninth Circuit does not yet have jurisdiction over my case because not all district court claims were finalized.
• They want the appellate court to either pause (stay) the case or throw it out entirely​.

This, of course, directly conflicts with their earlier arguments in the district court, where they insisted the dismissed claims were irrelevant and closed — to avoid discovery obligations and responding to my evidence requests​.

My Response

In my Omnibus Opposition, I detailed how Apple is:

• Contradicting itself across courts: In district court, Apple argued my dismissed claims were final and irrelevant to avoid producing discovery. In the appellate court, they now claim those same claims are "not final" to block my appeal.
• Engaging in procedural harassment: Apple flooded the court with over 1,500 pages of duplicative attachments — much of which was already in the record — violating Ninth Circuit rules that prohibit excessive and unnecessary filings​.
• Creating a procedural paradox: Apple wants the claims to be both final (to dodge discovery) and not final (to avoid appeal). In my filing, I described this as Apple creating a “logical loop” that collapses under scrutiny. As I wrote: “Apple’s argument requires claims to exist in mutually exclusive states — an infinite loop of contradictory conditions with no resolution.”​

I even included a diagram illustrating Apple’s self-contradictory litigation posture, highlighting how their argument logically collapses — or as I aptly put it, Apple’s litigation position is "like Schrödinger’s cat: simultaneously alive and dead."​

What Happens Next

Despite Apple’s attempt to derail the process, the Ninth Circuit already issued a briefing schedule:

• May 6, 2025: My Opening Brief due
• June 5, 2025: Apple’s Response due

Apple’s motion to stay or dismiss the appeal will be decided by the Court, but meanwhile, I will continue preparing my Opening Brief.

Stay tuned — I will keep fighting for accountability, and I will not allow procedural gamesmanship to derail the truth.

You can read the filings here:

• Apple’s Motion to Stay or Dismiss Appeal
• Apple’s Response to Motion to Consolidate
• Apple’s Response to Motion for Clarification
• My Omnibus Opposition to Apple’s Motions

Follow the full case docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket)

For real-time updates, follow along on Twitter, Mastodon, or BlueSky.

Today marks a monumental moment in my legal battles for accountability and worker rights: the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has finalized a settlement with Apple Inc., requiring the company to rescind its unlawful workplace policies on a nationwide basis. (NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428).

After nearly three years of fighting, the company that once claimed its policies were above scrutiny has now been forced to roll back key provisions that suppressed employees’ rights to:

• Discuss their wages, hours, and working conditions;
• Speak to the press;
• Share personal contact information with coworkers;
• Engage in union activity and protected concerted action​.

This is the first time Apple has entered into a public labor settlement of this scope, and it confirms what I’ve argued from the start: Apple’s internal policies were illegal under federal labor law.

What the Settlement Requires

The signed settlement agreement mandates that Apple:

• Publicly post a notice and the revised policies on their employee intranet (for at least 60 days) and on a public-facing website indefinitely.
• Rescind or revise definitions of "confidential" and "proprietary information" in their employment agreements and policies. Clarify that employees can talk about their pay, working conditions, and union organizing without retaliation.
• ​Stop surveillance practices and enforcement of surveillance policies that violated employee rights by monitoring protected activity. (!!!)
• Submit compliance proof, including screenshots, to the NLRB and to me to confirm implementation.

This agreement covers all Apple employees in the United States.

My Joinder Brief: Calling Out Apple’s Lies & Preserving All Rights

I filed a Statement of Joinder alongside the settlement to both support its approval and reserve all my rights for ongoing litigation. My brief highlights several critical truths:

• Apple’s Retaliation: Apple fired me citing the very policies they now admit were unlawful. As I wrote in my statement: “If these policies were unlawful, then terminating me for violating them was also unlawful retaliation.”​
• Apple’s Pattern of Deception: Even while negotiating this settlement, Apple told the courts and the public they never maintained these unlawful policies. I exposed these falsehoods in detail, including Apple’s misleading representations to:
  • The federal courts;
  • The SEC and its own shareholders;
  • The public through deceptive press statements​.
• Policy Loopholes Remain: While Apple has revised its policies, they failed to incorporate these changes directly into binding employment contracts, leaving room for future abuse. I flagged this legal ambiguity for the NLRB’s attention​.
• Apple Silenced Me for Asserting My Rights: Apple previously cited my request for protections during NLRB questioning as grounds for termination. Ironically, Apple’s revised policies now incorporate exactly the protections I originally demanded​.
• I Preserved All Rights: Crucially, I made it clear this settlement does not waive my claims in federal court, at the U.S. Department of Labor, or in any other forum. I continue to pursue full accountability across multiple venues​.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just a personal victory — it’s a precedent-setting moment for tech workers and whistleblowers nationwide.

• Pro-worker Precedent: The settlement confirms that broad, sweeping corporate confidentiality policies violate labor law when they chill protected employee speech.
• Transparency: Apple is required to post compliance documentation publicly.
• Future Enforcement: Apple faces ongoing monitoring and can be charged again if they violate the agreement.

As I wrote in my statement to fellow Apple employees: “You now have confirmation that your right to discuss wages, conditions, or organize is protected by law. If you are told otherwise: they are wrong and you can file an NLRB charge reporting their failure to comply with this agreement.”

Important Note for Apple Employees

If you believe Apple is violating this settlement or the National Labor Relations Act again:

• You can file an NLRB charge directly here: https://www.nlrb.gov
• If you prefer not to file under your own name, you can contact me at [email protected].
  • I am not your lawyer, but I am your ex-coworker — and depending on the situation, I may be able to file a charge on your behalf. If you have a copy of an email or statement made by Apple after entering this agreement, that you believe facially violates this agreement, that should be a slam dunk.

​Additionally, Apple employees can include copies of this settlement agreement in their own legal filings — whether employment lawsuits or agency complaints. This agreement is not specific to me. It applies to all Apple employees, and you have every right to use it to defend your rights.
​
This fight is not over, but this victory sends a clear message: no corporation, not even Apple, is above the law.

Read the Settlement Agreement here: