Major Legal Victory in My Lawsuit Against AppleI’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 ForwardIn 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 DecisionThe 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 ClaimIn 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
0 Comments
10/15/2024 - NLRB finds merit in Ashley's charges of unfair labor practices & retaliation10/15/2024 On Oct. 15 2024, NLRB finally made a decision on my 2021 unfair labor practice charges against Apple! If Apple doesn't settle with NLRB asap, NLRB is filing a complaint against Apple, alleging that Apple violated the NLRA at least ten times with me specifically. A complaint would be issued in 1-2 weeks, a formal trial would be scheduled, & Apple would have to try to explain to a judge why it thinks what it did to me is fine, actually. The NLRB found Apple violated federal labor law when it put me on leave on 8/4/21, fired me on 9/9/21, & in at least 8 statements made to me starting in March 2021 with: don't talk to your coworkers about safety or Superfund sites. Apple Employee Relation's 5-point balancing test (to use if I think I want to talk to my coworkers about safety or toxic waste dumps) is also featured. I could've bickered with them about twice as many additional charges & probably got most if I pushed on it, but it'd delay things for another six months or more, so 10 ULPs is good enough. If you're new to this toxic waste fiasco & catching up on the last three years, I did make a PowerPoint presentation about much of it for this year's LaborFest. (below) You can also learn more about HAZWOPER worker rights here: HAZWOPER & HAZCOM Reading Room 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  The recording of my LaborFest 2024 talk about Apple, hazardous waste, semiconductor fab, & workplace safety is now posted! Check it out! From the YouTube description: "Apple in Santa Clara has illegally built a fabrication facility next to residential apartments in Santa Clara and has flagrantly violated EPA and other local and state regulations in the operation of this facility. Ashley M. Gjøvik is a former Apple senior engineering program manager who discovered that her office was above a contaminated dump site that was allowing fumes to enter the office and that her home was also located next to the illegal Apple fabrication facility that was contaminating the Santa Clara neighborhood. When she blew the whistle she was targeted and terrorized by Apple in order to shut her down. She is now fighting Apple in Federal Court and filed a RICO suit against Apple for its illegal activities. She also discovered that the oversight agencies which are supposed to protect her and the public have been captured by Apple and the corporations that they are supposed to be regulating. This presentation was made on July 21, 2024 as part of LaborFest.net which commemorates the 1934 San Francisco general strike during the month of July and was also sponsored by WorkWeek. On January 30 2023, the US NLRB issued a Decision of Merit on two of Gjovik's NLRB charges. The charges were filed in October of 2021 and alleged Apple's employee handbook, NDAs, and a threatening email sent by Tim Cook, all violate the NLRA.
View some of the press coverage:
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 August 26 2021, Ashley filed her first NLRB charge against Apple - while she was still employed, shortly before Apple terminated her.
The NLRB charge is # 32-CA-282142 "In her letter to the NLRB, she said Apple’s employee relations department “intimidated me not to speak about my safety concerns”, that a manager advised she quit Apple and that she was subject to sexism and a “dramatically increased” workload. Matters escalated when she took her complaints to Apple’s Slack channels, specifically a 2,000-member forum for female software engineers. She said she was flooded with supportive comments and similar stories of workplace harassment — but she had since been banned from using Slack as part of her administrative leave." Financial Times [link] |
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed