|
On June 26 2025, US EPA served Apple with a notice of RCRA enforcement action re: Apple's fab at 3250 Scott Blvd, in Santa Clara, California. Read the notice here.   
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 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.
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 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. In 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a formal Request for Information (RFI) titled “Automated Worker Surveillance and Management” (Federal Register Document ID: OSTP_FRDOC_0001-0008) to solicit public input on the use and impact of digital surveillance technologies in the workplace. The RFI sought perspectives from workers, labor organizations, advocacy groups, and others on the prevalence, design, deployment, and consequences of such surveillance — especially its potential effects on worker rights, mental and physical health, privacy, and workplace equity. I submitted a public comment to OSTP on June 29, 2023, describing my direct experiences as a worker involved in labor agency proceedings, and raising concerns about corporate surveillance practices, including employee biometric data collection, mobile device monitoring, and privacy violations. My comment outlined policy, legal, and ethical concerns regarding these surveillance systems. On August 28 2024, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report to Congress titled “Digital Surveillance of Workers: Tools, Uses, and Stakeholder Perspectives” (GAO-24-107639). The report explicitly incorporated and analyzed the full set of public comments submitted to OSTP’s RFI — including mine — and cited input from 217 comments across 211 stakeholders. The GAO report specifically included a case that closely aligns with my submission, stating: “One worker reported being fired from a large technology company after raising concerns about the company’s privacy policy, which empowered managers to access, search, monitor, archive, and delete data stored on any worker’s devices.”  This passage, along with broader GAO findings, closely reflect themes raised in my comment, including:
My submission contributed to broader GAO assessments of:
These issues were further highlighted in media coverage of the GAO report, including articles in Biometric Update and Labor & Employment Law Daily, which emphasized worker-submitted concerns as instrumental to shaping the federal response.
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 On February 27 2024, Ashley Gjovik filed her third amended complaint in the civil lawsuit.
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division View the complaint here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.47.0.pdf View the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ On January 8 2024, Ashley Gjovik appealed her US Department of Labor CERCLA charge to the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Judges and requested a de novo hearing on the record.
View the request here: gjovik.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/US-DOL-OALJ-Gjovik-v-Apple-CERCLA-RCRA-CAA.pdf Ashley also requested an amendment to add RCRA and Clean Air Act charges as well, to capture what Apple did to her with their secret semiconductor fab exhaust in 2020. On December 29 2023, Ashley filed another NLRB charge against Apple. This time, Ashley charged Apple's lawyers violated the NLRA on Apple's behalf.
The charge is # 01-CA-332897 Read more about the NLRB charge here. On December 21 2023, Ashley Gjovik filed her second amended complaint in the civil lawsuit.
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division View the complaint: https://gjovik.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Gjovik-v-Apple-Second-Amended-Complaint-2023.pdf View the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ On October 25 2023, Ashley Gjovik filed her first amended complaint in the civil lawsuit.
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division View the complaint here: https://gjovik.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gjovik-v-Apple-Amended-Complaint.pdf View the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ Ashley Gjovik filed a civil lawsuit against Apple Inc on September 7 2023.
Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 3:23-CV-04597, US District Court, Northern District of California, SF Division Read the complaint: https://gjovik.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Gjovik-v-Apple-Complaint.pdf View the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67772913/gjovik-v-apple-inc/ Read the announcement: https://ashleygjovik.substack.com/p/apple-corporate-crime-update On June 12 2023, Ashley filed a complaint to the US EPA, CalEPA, and city HazMat about Apple's stealth semiconductor fabrication activities at 3250 Scott Blvd and Gjovik (and other's) resulting illness.
Read the complaint: www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/3250_scott_complaint_-_final.pdf On January 10 2022, Ashley filed another NLRB charge to capture the continuing harassment, intimidation, coercion, and retaliation that had occurred after she was fired.
The charge is # 32-CA-288816 On September 16 2021, Ashley filed a second charge with the NLRB accusing Apple of violation the NLRA when it fired her on September 9 2021.
The charge is # 32-CA-283161 |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
||||||||||
RSS Feed