2016 CALIFORNIA DTSC CONSENT AGREEMENT 

In 2016, Apple entered a hazardous waste Consent Agreement with the California EPA over hazardous waste violations at two different Apple facilities in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The agreement was for at least five years and covered all Apple hazardous waste activities in California. The agreement similarly found that Apple was violating hazardous waste laws under both federal and state laws including many of the same issues at 3250 Scott Blvd including operating without required permits, failing to properly label and mark hazardous waste, and unlawfully transporting hazardous waste without required manifests or records (including unlawfully exporting hazardous waste to other countries). DTSC fined Apple $450,000. 

View the 2016 Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and Announcement. In 2016, Apple's environmental team told Reuters that "This matter involves an oversight in filing paperwork... We've worked... to ensure that going forward we have the proper permits for our current site. As we do with all our facilities, we followed our stringent set of health and safety standards, which go well beyond legal requirements." (See, California EPA says settled with Apple on hazardous waste claims). The Consent Agreement could only be terminated if Apple demonstrated compliance with hazardous waste laws at all of its facilities. At the time Apple was able to obtain a termination of the agreement in 2020, Apple was admittedly in violation of federal hazardous waste laws at 3250 Scott Blvd. If the 2017-2025 RCRA violations had been identified and reported, those violations likely would have prevented the termination of the 2016-2020 California EPA Consent Agreement. 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for information.

​-Ashley ​

Today we launched a Change.org Petition asking politicians and the EPA to shut down Apple's illegal chip fab at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California.

Sign the Petition!

We're also holding a rally & press conference at the public sidewalks next to the facility on August 16 2025 at 12pm - 2pm PT. If you're in the SF Bay Area come show the government & Apple that people don't want Apple dumping toxic waste on playgrounds! ​

On June 30 2025, I served Apple, City of Santa, EPA, and the property owner notice of an incoming EPA Citizen Suit under RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, and EPCRA -- as well as a public nuisance claim -- about Apple's illegal semiconductor fabrication plant at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa Clara, California. 

Read the Notice here. 

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.

Recent federal judicial decisions in Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (3:23-cv-04597, Northern District of California) represent a systematic judicial assault on federal environmental enforcement authority and constitutional due process protections. Through procedural manipulation disguised as case management, the defendant (Apple) and District Judge (Judge Edward Chen) created a framework that effectively immunizes corporate polluters from toxic tort liability while denying citizens fundamental constitutional rights. These decisions threaten to undermine decades of environmental protection law and federal enforcement capabilities. The implications of these decisions extend far beyond a single case, establishing precedent that could effectively eliminate private enforcement of environmental violations while creating procedural mechanisms for corporate defendants to escape liability through systematic rule manipulation.

​The timeline also reveals the decision's direct conflict with federal enforcement priorities. After plaintiff's investigation revealed potential violations at Apple's semiconductor facility, her June 2023 EPA complaint triggered federal enforcement investigation at the site. The EPA's response validates that plaintiff's concerns warranted regulatory attention (precisely the type of citizen enforcement mechanism Congress intended to encourage through environmental statutes). Chen's decision penalizes the thorough investigation that led to federal enforcement action, essentially ruling that plaintiff should have filed suit before conducting the due diligence that revealed actionable violations and prompted EPA intervention.

On May 20 2024, Chen ruled on a Motion to Dismiss and decided to allow Gjovik's environmental claims to move forward. Then, despite previously approving the claims, on October 1 2024, Chen dismissed the same environmental claims with leave to amend, specifically instructing Gjovik to plead "inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence." Then, on February 27 2025, after Gjovik amended as instructed, Chen dismissed the same claims with prejudice using an entirely different legal standard based on judicial notice of public documents.

In response to Apple's fifth 12(b)(6) motion, Chen took judicial notice of Apple's own regulatory documents and then made factual determinations about what "reasonable inquiry" would have reveal and what that inquiry would have consisted of. Chen then also resolved disputed questions about reasonable diligence without testimony or discovery, and concluded any factual conflict in pleadings with deference to the defendant's unsubstantial claims. Chen also denied the plaintiff the right to develop factual records on questions traditionally reserved for juries. 

Chen's use of judicial notice transforms regulatory filings from compliance documentation into litigation weapons. Corporate defendants can now attach their own permits and emission reports to motions to dismiss, arguing these documents establish liability notice regardless of content or interpretation complexity.  Chen's reasoning would also eliminate discovery rule protection for anyone living near industrial facilities.

​This circumvents normal discovery processes where federal agencies could provide context about regulatory compliance, violations, and enforcement priorities. The procedure denies federal prosecutors potential cooperation from private litigants who might develop evidence useful in criminal enforcement actions. By cutting off civil discovery, Chen's approach limits the factual development that often supports federal prosecutions. Worse, he made this decision while knowing the US EPA was investigating Apple's activities at this site and he also refused to take notice of the plaintiff's request for Judicial Notice with those federal public records. 

​Chen identified that CERCLA § 9658 preempts state discovery rules for toxic exposure cases. However, his application fundamentally misinterprets federal policy. The provision exists to ensure adequate time for complex environmental investigations; not to accelerate dismissals based on industrial permit availability. Chen's reasoning converts federal preemption from a plaintiff protection into a corporate shield, inverting Congressional intent to provide adequate investigation time for environmental claims.

Chen's implicit reasoning also creates discriminatory limitation periods based on technical knowledge. This is a particularly problematic precedent for environmental enforcement. This professional expertise penalty would deter environmental professionals from residing near industrial areas and discourage the technical knowledge crucial for environmental enforcement. Under this framework:

• EPA employees living near industrial facilities face shortened limitation periods
• Environmental consultants must proactively investigate nearby operations
• Engineers and scientists bear investigation duties beyond those of other citizens

These standards make environmental protection impossible by requiring either universal technical expertise or prophylactic litigation based on the mere existence of permitted industrial activity.

​Chen also applied the 2-year toxic exposure statute (§ 340.8) while completely ignoring the 3-year property damage statute (§ 338(b)) that would have protected Gjovik's property damage claims. This selective statute application demonstrates systematic bias toward the shortest possible limitations period and is not supported by existing law or public policy.

Further, Chen entertained Apple's successive motion based on speculative "judicial economy" concerns arising out of the expectation that Apple would engage in Rambo litigation. Chen even acknowledged that Rule 12(g)(2) "does lend support to Ms. Gjovik's position,"  but proceeded anyways. This reasoning nullifies Rule 12(g)(2) entirely by allowing defendants to always claim future filing opportunities, and to reward them for litigation misconduct. He further justified his actions post hoc by claiming he was able to find more claims he could dismiss at his discretion (not on the merits), which is not the legal standard. 

The plaintiff objected to these issues, and catastrophic legal implications, in her filings and during oral arguments. Apple's legal counsel consisted exclusively of Big Law employment litigation defense counsel, including multiple partners specialized in defending large corporations from retaliation and discrimination claims, and did not include any environmental attorneys. Apple's counsel also affirmatively told the court that Apple was not under investigation for environmental issues at the site, when Apple was under active US EPA investigation and enforcement. 

The impact of Chen's decision specifically eliminates the discovery rule for private tort remedies and incentivizes defendants to engage in criminal obstruction until the statute of limitations expires. This also creates a bifurcated enforcement system where, upon successful concealment by the defendant, environmental violations can only be addressed through federal citizen suit mechanisms with limited injunctive relief, not through state tort law with damages liability. This bifurcation reduces deterrent effects by eliminating corporate financial liability while preserving only prospective equitable remedies, and requiring uncompensated labor by victims to enforce and obtain financial penalties to be charged against wrong-doers, but only paid to the U.S. Treasury. 

Judge Chen also dismissed the plaintiff's environmental tort claims as time-barred while simultaneously allowing her crime victim retaliation claims to proceed, while both are based on the overlapping and related misconduct by Apple Inc. The same judge who created multiple unconstitutional loopholes to shield Apple from tort liability also found that Apple's conduct appeared to present a strong enough case for criminal charges, as to support Labor Code protections for crime victims arising out of the same facts.

At the same time, Chen also refused to acknowledge plaintiff's arguments that during the same time period that Apple claims she should have discovered their activities, Apple was actively retaliating against her, engaged in criminal witness intimidation and tampering, attempted to coerce her into an undervalued settlement of all claims while concealing what they did to her and prior to firing her, Apple made false and misleading statements to her and the government about their activities at the facility, and that she has inherent claims to crime victim restitution regardless of the form of the cause of action.

​Chen did not even address these arguments and his decision implies that even if an employee is a victim of criminal environmental conduct by their employer, that employer can avoid claims about the underlying harms through otherwise criminal retaliation, harassment, and obstruction in order to conceal their misconduct until the expiration of the statute of limitations.
​
The Ninth Circuit's repeated refusal to review final judgments on these dismissed environmental claims also violates established appellate jurisdiction principles while creating complete procedural blockade for pro se crime victims. Constitutional violations become unreviewable while precedent harmful to private environmental rights becomes entrenched. This appellate denial particularly harms federal enforcement interests by preventing correction of decisions that undermine private environmental rights that complement federal enforcement capabilities.

Chen's framework provides corporate defendants with a replicable strategy for escaping environmental liability, even if they did not engage in the same earlier criminal conduct and cover-up that Apple did:

1. File successive motions to dismiss despite procedural waivers
2. Attach own regulatory compliance documents and seek judicial notice
3. Argue document availability equals liability notice regardless of content
4. Force impossible pleading standards on complex liability theories
5. Secure dismissal with prejudice and fight any attempt to appeal 

This framework threatens to eliminate any statute of limitations tolling for private environmental tort liability from any industrial facility with public regulatory filings. It also invites corporate defendants to undertake the same witness intimidation and obstruction that Apple did, in order to prevent victims from filing claims prior to the expiration of statute of limitations.

Federal agencies should clarify that regulatory filing availability does not create immunity from private tort liability for environmental violations. EPA should issue guidance clarifying that citizen investigation and complaint processes support federal enforcement authority, and that the federal discovery rule preempts Chen's rogue decision. Federal prosecutors should also prioritize cases involving facilities where citizen complaints have been dismissed under similar reasoning to demonstrate federal commitment to environmental protection. ENRD should consider amicus briefing in any future cases or appeals under Chen's theories, in order to clarify federal enforcement priorities and preemption scope.

Gjovik v. Apple Inc. represents systematic judicial nullification of private environmental rights through Apple's procedural manipulation. Chen's framework threatens to eliminate tolling for private tort liability and serves as a warning that a well-resourced defendant's sophisticated and malicious case management strategy can sabotage entire statutes. Federal intervention is necessary to prevent this precedent from destroying private environmental remedies that support broader enforcement goals, to provide essential deterrent effects against corporate environmental violations, and to hold Apple and their counsel accountable for making these bad faith arguments and obstructing an appeal that could have corrected this untenable and catastrophic outcome.

​-Ashley 

Published: August 24 2025

Apple had filed an opposition to my appeal of the U.S. Dept. of Labor toxic waste whistleblower case & reading Apple's response, and having to respond to it, was just as enjoyable as stabbing pencils into my eyes. You can read that here.

I filed my Reply to U.S. Dept. of Labor on Nov. 6 2024, cutting it close at literally midnight - but getting it in. US Dept. of Labor accepted it later that day.

U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB appellate reply:

​The U.S. Dept. of Labor ARB also issued an Order formally approving the appeal request and issuing a briefing schedule. I filed a Notice of Pendency in the civil lawsuit for our Case Mgmt Conference tomorrow. You can read the full Order in the filing here.

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. 

I'm incredibly honored to have my semiconductor fab story spotlighted by Monroe Labs on the "Microsoft - A Materialist Approach" YouTube channel. Check it out! 

From the YouTube description: 

"In today’s video, we’ll take a detour from examining Microsoft’s activities to talk about Apple. Specifically, the health and legal struggles of Ashley Gjovik (whose name I mispronounced as Grovnik in this video), inflicted on her by Apple. We’ll also talk about the work Gjovik has been doing shining a light on the ecological and health impacts of Apple’s chip fabrication facilities which are little reported on.

When most people think of Apple, what comes to mind is the image it has crafted for itself: ultra competence, austere efficiency, design excellence and echoes of the myth of California - progressive and open. 

Of course, Apple is a corporation and operates according to the rules of capitalist political economy and also, the power imperatives of capitalist enterprises -  an imperial disdain for people’s lives because profit is uber alles.

In June of 2024, Gjovik posted an overview of her experiences and findings on LinkedIn which I read for you. By the way, the music you’re hearing is from the album, Architect of Truth by Robert Beshara. The song is Whiplash. Link in the show description."

On June 21 2024, the US EPA released an enforcement report with 18 exhibits, that confirmed Apple Inc is operating an unpermitted *semiconductor fabrication* facility in one of the busiest and most trafficked areas in the city of Santa Clara, California.

The report, along with Apple's own regulatory filings, confirmed this facility is emitting hazardous waste vapors, fumes, and gases into the outdoor air around the building. The report also confirmed that Apple is engaged in hazardous waste treatment and disposal, including these air emissions, without the permits, records, and monitoring required by federal law.

This nondescript building sits directly across the street from high-density residential apartments (Santa Clara Square), and a variety of commercial buildings including, but not limited to: a Whole Foods grocery store, several restaurants with outdoor patios, and a yoga studio. There is also a school within 1,000 feet, and two public parks within 200 feet of this factory.

Back in February 2023, through my own research, I discovered that Apple was doing silicon fab at the facility. I spent several months researching further, gathering records, speaking with agencies, and drafting a formal complaint. Because of all of the evidence and information I gathered, I was able to successfully trigger a US EPA RCRA Compliance & Enforcement investigation, which then led to at least three on site inspections, as described in the report. US EPA found at least *19* unique violations of RCRA during these inspections.

Semiconductor fab is one of the most dangerous types of manufacturing in history; for the workers inside the plant, and also for the people and environment outside the plant. I became seriously ill while living at the Santa Clara Square apartments several years ago - and the illness was diagnosed by chemical exposure doctors as exposure to industrial chemicals from an unknown source. I went public about it, and additional victims promptly came forward. But the government could not figure out where the chemicals were coming from. Its clear now what the source was.

Its unclear how many people were exposed and injured by Apple's illegal manufacturing operations. I am lobbying for involvement from the Dept of Public Health to investigate the extent of the damage Apple has caused to probably thousands of human lives. There is also a question of harm to environment, and harm to the properties of all of the homes and small businesses surrounding this factory.

I feel very proud and relieved that all of my hard work from 2020 to 2023 investigating the chemical hazards in that area resulted in so much action from the government, and identified such a dangerous situation that required intervention - but there is still a lot of work to be done.

The US EPA RCRA Inspection report and all of its exhibits are available via my Dropbox.

There's also a few social media threads about the report:
- Twitter @ashleygjovik
- Mastodon @ashleygjovik
- BlueSky @ashleygjovik

On March 10 2024, Ashley submitted a community stakeholder interview record to the US EPA and USACE for the Five Year Review process at the Triple Site in Sunnyvale, California.

Read the submission here: ​​https://www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/us-epa-fyr-triple-site-gjovik-interview-final-full.pdf

On January 19 2024, Gjovik's CERCLA/Superfund whistleblower retaliation case was docketed with the US. Dept. of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges as Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-CER-00001 and assigned to the Boston court house.

​View PDF of docketing order.2PD42024-CER-00001-CER-00001

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 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 August 29 2021, Ashley filed a complaint to the US EPA about Apple, the TRW Microwave Superfund site, and the cracks in the foundation.

Due to Gjovik's disclosures, the US EPA inspected the site and found a number of CERCLA issues that required oversight for multiple years after.