|
Narrative Is My Legal Training: How I Fought Back Against Apple’s Procedural Blitz — And Why That Filing Was Never Just About the Rules On May 14, 2025, Apple filed a late-night (May 15 2025 12:29 AM EST) omnibus motion in the Ninth Circuit — a procedural grenade wrapped in the language of urgency. They moved to strike my appellate brief. They moved to strike my declarations. They moved to compel sealed materials I hadn’t even had a chance to discuss with the Court. And they asked the Court to rule on all of it within 24 to 48 hours. This wasn’t about formatting. It wasn’t about rules. It was about erasing the record, neutralizing the whistleblower, and turning the Court into a gatekeeper of silence. I’m a pro se litigant. I’m disabled. I’m a whistleblower, witness, and victim. And I did what I’ve always done: I responded — not with power, but with clarity. I filed a 35-page omnibus response supported by law, fact, and my own legal training — the kind that’s based not in courtroom warfare, but in narrative, justice, and survival. What They Tried to Do In a single motion, Apple asked the Court to:
What they didn’t say in that motion — but what matters deeply — is that they refused to confer with me days earlier. When I offered to discuss the declarations, they informed me nothing was due and there was no appeal. When I offered to stipulate, they refused to engage. And then they filed a midnight three-party motion claiming that because the declarations were filed seven days after my Motion, that they need a thirty day extension. They also claimed that my previously-not-due declarations for the non-existent appeal are actually late and should be stricken. They also claimed I filed hundreds of pages of new exhibits that are overwhelming and delaying them. What I Filed in Response I didn’t file three motions. I filed one. I responded to all three of Apple’s demands — overnight — in a single, consolidated brief. I explained:
What I Was Actually Trained to Do Apple wants the Court to see me as a stealth attorney — someone with a J.D. who's “gaming the system.” That’s not just false. It’s upside down. I hold a law degree, but I have never practiced litigation. I’ve never worked in a courtroom. I’ve never taken a deposition. My lowest grades in law school were in civil procedure, evidence, and legal writing — because those courses were designed for adversarial systems I was never drawn to. What did I study?
That is the law I was trained in. Not litigation. Not striking. Not silencing. Telling the truth in a way that survives. They Tried to Gag Me — Then Made me Bleed This week, in the district court, Apple asked for a protective order to silence me — to restrict my ability to speak publicly about their conduct. Then, in the Ninth Circuit, they asked the Court to force me to disclose sealed materials — including:
I redacted what I could. I served what I had to. I filed a public declaration because I had no choice. And then I went online and deleted references from my own LinkedIn — because their demand for disclosure had real-world consequences. They tried to gag me. Then they tried to make me bleed in public. And all of it was framed as “procedure.” There was no team of lawyers behind this filing. No paralegal. No funding. Just me. I worked nonstop all night. I broke it into sections. I backed it with law. I disclosed my law school transcript. I cited trauma research. I admitted mistakes. I told the truth — in the format they demanded, but in the language I was trained to speak. They wanted to control the narrative. I reclaimed it. Final Thoughts Apple views me as a threat — to their reputation, to their procedures, to their control over the facts. But the truth is simpler:
- Ashley The full appellate docket is here. Read Apple's Motion here. Read my response here & below: 
0 Comments
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 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  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 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 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:
|
AuthorUpdates from Ashley Gjovik about her whistleblower battle against Apple Inc. Archives
December 2025
Categories
All
|
||
RSS Feed