📁 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:

This March, I officially opened an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to challenge the dismissal of critical claims in my lawsuit against Apple Inc. — claims that include environmental violations, whistleblower retaliation, and toxic tort injuries. This marks a significant next chapter in my fight for accountability.

The appellate case is docketed under Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Nos. 24-6058 & 25-2028. After Apple's attempts to have portions of my case dismissed on procedural grounds, I’m now taking these issues to the federal appellate court for review.
​
In my filings, I emphasized several key points:

• I filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases to ensure both active appeals are considered together. Since they arise from the same facts and legal questions, consolidation avoids "fragmented litigation of essentially identical issues," which undermines uniformity and judicial efficiency​.
• Recognizing a pending Rule 54(b) motion in the district court, I filed a Motion for Clarification. I urged the court to confirm its authority to review finality independently and sought guidance on scheduling to avoid unnecessary litigation delays​.
• The Court issued a schedule with my Opening Brief due May 6, 2025, and Apple’s response due June 5, 2025. Optional replies are due within 21 days after Apple's brief​.

Additionally, in my motion, I highlighted that many of the dismissed claims — including those under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Act, and California civil rights statutes — were fully and finally resolved at the district level. Therefore, they are ripe for appellate review.  Apple, in its arguments, had even acknowledged these dismissed claims as legally and factually distinct from other ongoing issues, which reinforces my position that appellate review at this stage is both appropriate and necessary​.

The goal is clear: to prevent fragmented litigation, avoid conflicting rulings, and make sure these vital public interest issues are fully and fairly heard at the appellate level.

You can read the filings here:

• Motion to Consolidate Cases
• Motion for Clarification of Briefing Schedule
• Court’s Docketing Notice & Time Schedule Order

You can follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (9th Circuit Docket)

Upcoming dates to watch:

• May 6, 2025: Opening Appellate Brief due
• June 5, 2025: Apple’s Response Brief due
• June 12, 2025: District Court hearing on Rule 54(b) motion (which may affect the appellate posture)

After dragging their feet for over a year (I filed my lawsuit in September 2023, and Apple finally answered on March 13, 2025), Apple finally filed their formal response to my Fifth Amended Complaint. But rather than substantively engage with my allegations, Apple’s answer was, frankly, nonsense.
​
Their filing was loaded with generic, boilerplate defenses like:

• “Failure to mitigate damages”
• “After-acquired evidence”
• "Waiver, estoppel, and consent"
• “Statute of limitations”
• “Workers’ compensation exclusivity”
• And even the catch-all: “Reservation of rights” — which isn’t even a defense.

Worse, Apple denied knowing or having information about facts squarely in their possession — like their own decision to fire me, their own employee records, and even public regulatory findings about their toxic worksite​​.

So, I fought back.

What I Filed

Using a rarely invoked but fully authorized rule of federal procedure, I filed:

• A Motion to Strike Apple’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses
  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), I asked the court to strike every legally insufficient, unsupported, or frivolous defense Apple raised.
• A Motion for a More Definite Statement
  Under Rule 12(e), I demanded that Apple clarify its evasive, vague, and self-contradictory denials — especially where they claim not to know basic facts about their own actions.

In my motion, I called out Apple directly: "Apple’s Answer is a textbook example of bad faith pleading — marked by evasive denials, boilerplate recitations of legal conclusions, strategic obfuscation, and attempts to rewrite the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by fiat."
​
I emphasized that courts routinely grant Rule 12(f) and 12(e) motions when defendants abuse the pleading process with unsupported legal theories or refuse to admit indisputable facts.

I also noted that Apple's refusal to provide substantive answers obstructs fair discovery and wastes judicial resources. For example: Apple denied knowledge of whether they attempted to delete my Twitter posts — even though Apple's own federal legal filings from their own legal team claimed exactly that​.

What This Means

This motion puts Apple on the defensive, forces them to either clean up their pleading or face court-ordered consequences, and positions me to keep Apple accountable as discovery and trial prep continue.

More importantly:

• Apple’s evasions are part of a larger pattern of bad faith litigation, and this motion forces them to stop dodging.
• Courts generally disfavor boilerplate defenses, and my motion is designed to strip away Apple’s legal noise and expose the substance (or lack thereof) of their case.

If granted, this motion could knock out every one of Apple's affirmative defenses, dramatically narrowing the scope of the litigation in my favor.

Read the Filings:

• Apple’s Answer to the Fifth Amended Complaint
• My Motion to Strike Apple’s Affirmative Defenses
• My Motion for a More Definite Statement

Follow the full docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket)

In a significant — and frankly, monumental — development in my litigation against Apple, the federal court issued an order granting me the right to record all future discovery meet-and-confer sessions with Apple’s attorneys.

This is especially important because, under normal circumstances, California's strict "two-party consent" recording law generally would have required Apple’s permission to record these meetings as proof of misconduct in civil litigation. Apple, predictably, had repeatedly refused to consent — leaving me vulnerable to exactly the kind of coercion and misrepresentation I’ve been documenting for years.

But now, the Court stepped in.
​
The Order, issued on March 11, 2025, states: “If Plaintiff is concerned about the possibility of Defendant making ‘unlawful threats and coercive statements’ during the meet and confer or the potential that the discussions will be misrepresented, the parties can meet via video conference and record the meet and confer session.”
​
This means:

• I am no longer dependent on Apple's consent to record our discovery meetings.
• I can create an accurate, verifiable record of all interactions with Apple's lawyers.
• This recording authorization neutralizes Apple's past tactics of making threats and then falsely claiming misconduct on my part.

How We Got Here

Leading up to this order, I filed multiple discovery dispute letters with the Court documenting Apple’s refusal to engage in good faith discovery discussions. I detailed:

• Apple’s pattern of ignoring my meet-and-confer requests.
• Apple’s history of making coercive and misleading statements, which I previously reported to the NLRB, FBI, and referenced in my filings​​.
• Apple's abusive use of California’s recording laws to prevent transparency during discussions​.

When I sought reconsideration of an earlier order dismissing my discovery letters, I reminded the Court of Apple's prior unlawful threats, coercion, and false accusations. I made clear that without the ability to record these discussions, Apple would continue its pattern of misconduct unchecked​.

The Court recognized the seriousness of my concerns and proactively granted me this recording right.

Read the Court’s Order and Filings:

• Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (but authorizing recordings)
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
• Plaintiff’s Exhibits: Prior Court Transcript and NLRB Filings
• Plaintiff’s Objections to Apple’s Opposition

Full district court docket: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket)

What This Means Moving Forward

This is a critical safeguard as discovery proceedings intensify. With the Court’s authorization:

• Apple can no longer use secrecy to their advantage.
• Any attempts by Apple to coerce, threaten, or misrepresent discussions will now be captured in a clear, undeniable record.
• This also strengthens my position should Apple attempt further gamesmanship, as recordings provide undeniable evidence for court oversight or even potential future sanctions.

But more importantly, this order undermines Apple’s original justification for firing me. One of Apple’s supposed reasons for my termination was that I wanted to create a record of our conversations — specifically because I feared unlawful threats and misrepresentations. This federal court order now implicitly confirms that my concern was not only reasonable but legally justified. In fact, the Court itself recognized that the risks of Apple making unlawful threats and misrepresenting discussions are significant enough to warrant preemptive permission for me to record the meetings. That directly invalidates Apple's prior position and highlights the retaliatory nature of their actions.

This is bigger than my case alone.

The Court’s order also sets a pro-worker precedent, especially valuable for:

• Pro se plaintiffs, who often face corporate law firms' aggressive tactics without institutional support.
• Labor rights and whistleblower cases, where power imbalances and coercion are rampant.
• Workers in states like California, where two-party consent laws have historically been weaponized to intimidate employees from documenting abuse.

​
This Court decision implicitly affirms that workers — especially whistleblowers and pro se litigants — have the right to protect themselves from bad faith litigation tactics and coercive behavior, including by creating their own record of interactions.

This is not just a procedural step forward; it’s a statement of legal principle.

As I continue to push forward in this fight for accountability, transparency remains my shield — and now, the Court has ensured I can maintain it.

I’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

In 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.

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.

In 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

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

In early February 2025, I filed a series of formal discovery dispute letters in my ongoing litigation against Apple Inc., demanding court intervention over Apple’s blatant obstruction tactics during discovery. These filings were necessary because Apple has refused to comply with even the most basic legal obligations in this case.

For those following the battle closely: discovery is the legal process where both parties are supposed to exchange information. Apple, however, chose to play games instead of play fair.

The Filings: What I Took to the Court

On February 11, 2025, I filed four discovery-related motions, addressing Apple’s abusive tactics on multiple fronts:

1. Request for a Court-Supervised Discovery Conference
   I requested a telephonic conference with the magistrate judge because Apple outright refused to meet and confer in good faith. Apple refused to engage productively in discovery planning, refused to explain what materials they needed, and then falsely accused me of misconduct while withholding their own disclosures​.
2. Discovery Dispute Letter #1: Apple’s Document Production Failures
   I highlighted how Apple has refused to produce core documents — including records about my termination, internal investigations, and whistleblowing concerns. They simultaneously claim discovery is both "completed" and "has not yet begun," depending on which argument is more convenient​.
3. Discovery Dispute Letter #2: Apple’s Refusal to Provide Disclosures
   Apple failed to comply with basic disclosure rules, like identifying who made the decision to fire me and producing related records. Shockingly, Apple’s key defense witness has now submitted three sworn declarations claiming she has never met me, directly contradicting Apple’s litigation position and raising serious questions of perjury and credibility​.
4. Discovery Dispute Letter #3: Apple’s Abusive Privilege & Confidentiality Claims
   Apple declared almost every document as "confidential" by default and refused to provide a privilege log. They even demanded a protective order that would prevent me from sharing evidence with regulators — a tactic designed to suppress whistleblowing and evade accountability​.

What I’m Asking the Court to Do

In my letters, I asked the Court to:

• Compel Apple to produce missing documents and provide proper disclosures.
• Invalidate Apple’s overbroad confidentiality designations.
• Require Apple to produce a legitimate privilege log.
• Order Apple to negotiate a reasonable discovery plan in good faith.
• Consider sanctions for Apple’s obstructionist behavior under Rule 37.

My goal is simple: transparency, accountability, and compliance with the law. Apple's behavior isn’t just frustrating — it reveals a deliberate strategy to delay justice and obstruct the truth.

As I wrote in my filings: “Apple’s actions constitute an intentional and coordinated effort to obstruct discovery. Their refusal to engage in good faith negotiations, contradictory positions, and outright defiance of Court-ordered obligations demand judicial intervention.”​

What Happens Next

The Court has not yet ruled on these motions, but I remain committed to pushing for accountability. Whether Apple likes it or not, I will continue to expose their bad-faith tactics and fight for a fair process.

You can read the filings here:

• Request for Court-Supervised Conference
• Discovery Dispute Letter #1 (Production Failures)
• Discovery Dispute Letter #2 (Disclosures)
• Discovery Dispute Letter #3 (Privilege & Confidentiality Abuse)

Follow the full district court docket here: Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (District Court Docket)

On Jan. 31 2025, I filed two motions. 

First I requested permission to replead a number of my claims with newly discovered evidence, including RICO Act, Bane Act, Ralph Act, & Dodd Frank Act. 

Second, I moved to disqualify Apple's law firm, Orrick, due to a number of conflicts of interest and ethical issues. 

The full docket (here) has links to the memos, motions, and exhibits. 

Status: NLRB filed a complaint against Apple on Dec. 18 2024.

​The case is tracked under: 

• August 26 2021 (32-CA-282142)

• September 16 2021 (32-CA-283161)​​

The Dec. 18 2024 complaint: ​

1. (a) The original charge in Case 32-CA-282142 was filed by the Charging Party on August 26, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on August 30, 2021. (b) The amended charge in Case 32-CA-282142 was filed by the Charging Party on April 1, 2022, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on April 4, 2022. (c) The charge in Case 32-CA-283161 was filed by the Charging Party on September 16, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on September 20, 2021.

2. (a) At all times, Respondent, a California corporation with a headquarters at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California has retail facilities throughout the United States, has been engaged in the development, manufacture, and retail sale of consumer electronics and software. (b) Annually, in the course and conduct of its operations, Respondent derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received at its California facilities products, goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of California.

3. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

4. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Jenna Waibel Corporate Employee Relations Representative David Powers Software Development Engineering Director Ekelemchi Okpo Corporate Employee Relations Representative

5. About March 22, 2021, Respondent, by David Powers, by telephone: (a) Directed employees to refrain from talking about workplace environmental health and safety concerns with other employees. (b) Impliedly threatened employees with discipline by telling employees that the instruction to refrain from talking about workplace environmental health and safety concerns with other employees, was a warning. 

6. About April 27, 2021, Respondent, by Jenna Waibel: (a) By telephone, told employees to use the following five-point balancing test in advance of communicating workplace health and safety concerns to other employees: o make sure the information is complete o make sure the information is accurate o that it does not cause panic o that it does not make an assessment about safety; and o that people talk to the Employer’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) department directly. (b) By email, told employees that when discussing terms and conditions of employment, they should ensure that the information shared was as accurate and complete as possible. (c) By email, told employees to refrain from discussing their terms and conditions of employment by telling employees to first communicate their workplace health and safety concerns directly with Respondent.

7. Respondent, by Ekelemchi Okpo: (a) About August 4, 2021, during a video meeting, directed employees not to talk to other employees about Respondent’s investigation of employees’ workplace health and safety concerns. (b) About August 4, 2021, by email, told employees to refrain from sharing communications about Respondent’s investigation into employees’ workplace health and safety concerns. (c) About August 5, 2021, by email, told employees that he was “disappointed” that they “misrepresented” their discussion on August 4, 2021.

8. (a) From about March 22, 2021, to about September 2021, Respondent’s employee Gjøvik concertedly complained to Respondent regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions of Respondent’s employees, by inter alia, raising workplace environmental health and safety concerns. (b) From about June 2021, to about September 2021, Respondent’s employee Gjøvik engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of mutual aid and protection, by, inter alia, circulating a petition amongst employees regarding return-to-work concerns, talking to newspaper outlets about employees’ workplace complaints and concerns, posting about workplace complaints and concerns on social media as well as on Respondent’s Slack channel platform. (c) About August 4, 2021, Respondent suspended its employee Gjøvik. (d) About September 9, 2021, Respondent discharged its employee Gjøvik. (e) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(c) and 8(d), because Gjøvik engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b), and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities.

9. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5 through 8 Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 10. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above in paragraphs 5 through 8, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) physically and electronically post the Notice to Employees at all its facilities including, but not limited to, posting on Respondent-sponsored Slack communication channels, intranet portals, and by email; (2) email a copy of the Notice to Employees to all its supervisors and managers; (3) physically and electronically post the Employee Rights Notice poster in the same manner as the posting of the Notice to Employees; (4) have a Board Agent conduct a training session for its managers and supervisors on their obligations under the Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director); and (5) have a Board Agent conduct a training session for its employees on their rights under the Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director).

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above in paragraph 8 the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) offer employee Gjøvik reinstatement to her former job position or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed; (2) send a letter to Gjøvik apologizing for suspending and terminating her, expunge all Respondent’s records of such suspension and termination, and inform her, in writing, that her suspension and termination have been expunged from Respondent’s records and will not be used against her in any way; (3) make employee Gjøvik whole for all losses incurred as a result of the unfair labor practices described above, including for all direct and foreseeable pecuniary harm incurred as a result of her unlawful suspension an termination; and (4) should Gjøvik waive reinstatement, provide a neutral job reference to all prospective employers with the correct job titles and positions of employee Gjøvik. The General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.

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 October 23 2024, I filed a Motion to Stay the district court proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. You can read that motion here.

​The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19 2024. However, instead of responding in a normal way, on Nov. 6 2024, Apple filed a one and half page response unilaterally declaring the appeal is dismissed and accusing me of improper conduct. You can read their filing here. 

I needed to file something anyways to apologize for missing my deadline on the amended complaint, so I also took the opportunity to clarify that the appeal is still pending to ask for the millionth time that Apple stop harassing me. You can read that filing here. 

​
Motion to Stay:

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:

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 Oct. 4 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals docketed my Gjovik v Apple case and issued a scheduling order. 

Docket Number: 24-6058
Originating Case Number: 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
Short Title: Gjovik v. Apple Inc.

Ashley M. Gjovik
Appeal Opening Brief: November 13, 2024

Apple Inc.
Appeal Answering Brief: December 13, 2024