BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
X-WR-CALNAME:www.indybay.org
PRODID:-//indybay/ical// v1.0//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:Indybay-18878483
SEQUENCE:19052157
CREATED:20250728T193300Z
DESCRIPTION:Press Conference/Rally to Protest APPLE, INC.\nStop Poisoning Residents, 
 Public Places And Workers at Apple Plant \nStop Retaliation Of Workers & 
 Full Staffing Of CA OSHA To Protect Workers\n\n\nSat, Aug 16, 2025 12:00pm 
 - 2:00pm | US/Pacific\n\nPRESS CONFERENE\n\nLOCATION:  Apple Inc. 
 Semiconductor chip manufacturing plant in Santa Clara, 3250 Scott Blvd, 
 Santa Clara, CA\n\nApple executives are illegally operating the 
 semiconductor chip manufacturing plant (herein after "the plant" next to a 
 residential housing complex, senior care center, grocery store, and public 
 playground. Apple reported releasing toxic chemicals like benzene, mercury, 
 carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde into the air -- but city records show 
 even more chemical spills and leaks that were never reported to the 
 community (including deadly phosphine, silane, and fluorine gases).\n\nThe 
 US EPA inspected Apple's plant in 2023 and found extensive hazardous waste 
 violations. In June 2025, US EPA notified Apple they plan to take 
 enforcement action against them over their hazardous waste operations at 
 the plant. And an air quality Board has also cited Apple for air pollution 
 and operating without air pollution permits at the plant.\n\nThe plant 
 never went through the normal permitting process or environmental studies, 
 and the City of Santa Clara covered-up reports of illness from multiple 
 residents next to the plant. Multiple people reported chemical exposure 
 health issues to the government starting in at least 2021, and the city did 
 nothing. One resident, Ashley Gjovik, has active civil claims against Apple 
 over employment retaliation due to her reporting Apple's hazardous waste 
 emissions in 2020-2021. On June 30 2025, Gjovik also gave notice to US EPA, 
 Apple, city of Santa Clara, and the property owner of an incoming private 
 right of action suit under five environmental statutes. Gjovik's sixty-day 
 notice also includes notice of a public nuisance claim against all three 
 parties and intention to request the court to shut down the plant until it 
 can come into compliance with environmental, health, & safety laws.\n\nAs 
 of today, the plant continues to operate and risk the health and safety of 
 everyone inside and around it. We're meeting on 8/16 to protest the 
 existence of this plant producing hazardous waste next to homes and parks, 
 and demand that the city order the plant to stop operations. Meet us there 
 (and bring an N95 in case Apple is exhausting more pollution into the 
 air!\n\nDon't let Apple Inc. get away with a flimsy settlement with EPA 
 amounting to a mere slap on the hand!! We must ensure everyone is breathing 
 safe air, drinking safe water and not allow Apple Inc. to continually pay 
 settlement money to get government leaders to cover this up year after 
 year!!\n\nSafety before Profits!! Labor & Community Have A Right To Health 
 And Safety\n\nEnough Is Enough\nStop Poisoning Residents, public places & 
 workers at or near the Apple plant\nStop Retaliating against Apple 
 Whistleblowers\n\nEndorsed By\nWhistler Blowers United WBU\nCalifornai 
 Coaliton For Workers Memorial 
 Day\nhttp://www.workersmemorialday.org\nWorkWeek, United Front Committee 
 For A Labor Party UFCLP\n\nFederal Court Allows Major Retaliation Claims 
 Against Apple to Proceed; NLRB Charges Apple with Labor Violations for 
 Suspending & Firing Me 
 \n\nhttps://www.ashleygjovik.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIyxwdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRY93lyf0xELvJq58laNU4Tbrm8ZdVeBKGlE79fzd8AoJc9qfQoWNzmEQg_aem_ve_EBnZ6DI29o5xhWsgF2A\n\n\nOn 
 February 27, 2025, the U.S. District Court ruled that my retaliation and 
 labor law claims will move forward, rejecting Apple’s attempt to dismiss 
 them. This decision represents a major step toward holding Apple 
 accountable for its retaliation, whistleblower suppression, and workplace 
 safety violations, and it sets an important precedent for corporate 
 accountability, labor rights, and environmental justice. You can read the 
 full court decision here. \n\nThe court ruled that Apple failed to dismiss 
 my core claims (see my complaint), confirming that my allegations are 
 legally viable and must proceed toward trial. The decision also recognizes 
 the extraordinary nature of Apple’s retaliation, allowing me to seek 
 penalties (special damages) for labor violations, a rare ruling in an 
 individual lawsuit. This means Apple could now face financial liability, 
 beyond traditional damages, for violating labor laws. \n\nThe court also 
 confirmed that I have a valid claim that Apple retaliated against me for 
 reporting environmental crimes, a key issue in this case. In 2020, Apple 
 was secretly operating a semiconductor fabrication facility near my home, 
 illegally venting hazardous and carcinogenic chemicals into the air (read 
 more here). These exposures severely harmed my health. Apple not only 
 failed to disclose its environmental violations but retaliated against me 
 for raising concerns about the exposures, obstructed my ability to seek 
 accountability, and attempted to cover up its involvement in my harm. The 
 court’s ruling affirms that my Crime Victim Retaliation claim under 
 California Labor Code § 230(e) will proceed. This may be the first time a 
 workplace retaliation case has successfully invoked California’s Crime 
 Victim Protection laws. The court denied statutory penalties for this claim 
 due to my later discovery of Apple’s role in the pollution, but the 
 underlying cause of action remains intact.  \n\nIn addition, the court 
 ruled that Apple must face liability for retaliating against me for 
 reporting violations of environmental and workplace safety laws—including 
 my disclosures about hazardous conditions at my Apple office, which was 
 built on a Superfund site (read more here). The court expressly rejected 
 Apple’s arguments to dismiss these claims, ensuring that Apple must 
 answer for its unlawful conduct. Notably, the court also ruled that I can 
 seek special damages (penalties) under § 1102.5, which is unusual in 
 individual labor lawsuits.  \n\nThe court also allowed my claims under 
 California Labor Code § 6310 (workplace safety retaliation) and § 98.6 
 (general employment retaliation) to proceed. This includes Apple’s 
 retaliation against me for filing complaints with California labor 
 agencies, the NLRB, OSHA, the EPA, and other regulators; for discussing 
 workplace conditions, safety hazards, and wages; and for engaging in 
 legally protected speech. The ruling ensures that Apple must answer for its 
 efforts to suppress workplace concerns and punish employees for exercising 
 their rights. \n\nOne of the most significant aspects of the court’s 
 ruling is its decision to allow my California Labor Code § 1102.5 
 whistleblower retaliation claim to move forward with a privacy-based 
 whistleblower claim, something that is very rare. Courts often dismiss 
 privacy-related retaliation claims under § 1102.5 because they do not fit 
 the traditional framework of whistleblower disclosures. However, I 
 successfully argued that Apple retaliated against me for opposing its 
 illegal surveillance, unethical medical experiments on employees, and 
 unlawful AI-driven data collection practices. This is the first known case 
 in which a § 1102.5 claim is based on protesting non-consensual human 
 research and AI-related privacy violations. I alleged that Apple was 
 secretly collecting employees' biometric and psychological data for AI 
 development, engaging in deceptive human subject research, and violating 
 medical ethics and California privacy laws. The court’s ruling confirms 
 that retaliation for exposing these practices qualifies as whistleblower 
 retaliation under § 1102.5, setting a groundbreaking precedent for AI 
 ethics, privacy, and labor rights. \n\nThe court also upheld my legislative 
 witness retaliation claim under California Government Code § 9149.4, which 
 protects employees from retaliation for providing testimony to legislative 
 bodies. This claim is particularly significant because very few cases have 
 successfully invoked legislative witness protections in employment 
 retaliation lawsuits. I alleged that Apple retaliated against me after I 
 engaged with lawmakers and government agencies regarding environmental 
 hazards and corporate misconduct. The ruling affirms that employees have 
 the right to participate in the legislative process and report corporate 
 wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. This decision reinforces strong 
 protections for whistleblowers who assist in policy reform and government 
 investigations, ensuring that corporations cannot silence employees. 
 \n\nAnother highly unusual win is the court’s decision to allow my 
 California Labor Code § 96(k) retaliation claim to proceed. Most attorneys 
 fail to meet the “constitutional rights” requirement of § 96(k), and 
 courts routinely dismiss these claims. However, I successfully argued that 
 Apple retaliated against me for exercising fundamental rights protected by 
 the California Constitution, including my right to privacy (Article I, 
 Section 1) and my rights as a victim of crime (Article I, Section 28). 
 Specifically, I alleged that Apple punished me for protesting unlawful 
 workplace surveillance, speaking out about Apple’s toxic chemical 
 exposure that made me a crime victim, and advocating for crime victims’ 
 rights. The court’s decision allows this rarely successful claim to move 
 forward, reinforcing employee protections against corporate retaliation for 
 lawful off-duty speech and advocacy. This ruling strengthens protections 
 for employees who speak publicly about workplace misconduct, privacy 
 violations, and environmental crimes, ensuring that corporations cannot 
 weaponize termination to silence those who expose their wrongdoing. \n\nIn 
 my case, the court also recognized that California’s environmental laws, 
 including the California Hazardous Substances Act, the Safe Drinking Water 
 and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65), and federal laws like CERCLA 
 (Superfund) and the Clean Air Act, embody fundamental public policies 
 designed to protect public health, worker safety, and the environment. The 
 fact that my wrongful termination claim under Tameny is moving forward on 
 the basis of environmental violations is highly unusual and reinforces the 
 growing recognition that environmental protections are not just regulatory 
 requirements but core societal values. Additionally, whistleblower 
 retaliation claims under Labor Code § 1102.5 rarely proceed on 
 environmental law violations alone.  However, the court’s ruling in my 
 case affirms that employees who report environmental hazards, especially 
 those that pose a risk to public health—are protected under both 
 California’s general whistleblower statute and common law wrongful 
 termination protections. This decision sets a critical precedent that 
 corporations cannot retaliate against employees for exposing toxic 
 pollution, illegal hazardous waste disposal, or other environmental crimes. 
 \n\nThe court’s ruling allows me to seek a broad range of damages against 
 Apple, including penalties, punitive damages, injunctive relief, 
 compensatory damages, and declaratory relief. Notably, the court approved 
 penalties under California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 98.6, which is highly 
 unusual in an individual lawsuit. Typically, only California’s Labor 
 Commissioner or PAGA lawsuits seek statutory penalties, but I can now 
 pursue them directly against Apple, including $10,000 per violation of 
 whistleblower protections and labor retaliation laws. Additionally, the 
 court upheld my right to seek punitive damages, which are reserved for 
 cases involving malicious or reckless misconduct. Apple now faces 
 significant financial liability beyond standard lost wages and emotional 
 distress damages, as punitive damages serve to punish and deter corporate 
 retaliation and legal violations. \n\nThe ruling also allows me to pursue 
 injunctive relief, which could force Apple to reform its employment 
 policies and workplace safety practices. This could include court-ordered 
 protections for whistleblowers, mandatory disclosures about hazardous 
 workplace conditions, and external oversight of Apple’s compliance with 
 labor laws. Beyond financial penalties, I am also entitled to compensatory 
 damages for lost wages, emotional distress, medical costs related to 
 chemical exposure, and reputational harm caused by Apple’s retaliation. 
 The court has further allowed me to seek declaratory relief, establishing a 
 legal record that Apple violated my rights. This ruling is a major step 
 toward holding Apple accountable for its labor violations, workplace safety 
 failures, and corporate misconduct, ensuring that its unlawful practices 
 cannot simply be hidden behind a settlement. \n\nRecent court precedents 
 and legislative changes in California significantly strengthen my case and 
 increase the likelihood of success on multiple claims. The California 
 Supreme Court’s decision in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. 
 (2022) confirmed that Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claims 
 must be analyzed under Labor Code § 1102.6’s burden-shifting framework, 
 which favors employees by placing the burden on employers to prove, by 
 clear and convincing evidence, that they would have fired the employee for 
 independent reasons. Additionally, People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. 
 Kolla’s Inc. (2023) expanded the definition of “disclosure” under § 
 1102.5, protecting employees even if their employer was already aware of 
 the violations. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Killgore v. 
 SpecPro Professional Services, LLC (2022) held that internal reports to a 
 supervisor without corrective authority still qualify as protected 
 disclosures, further strengthening my case. \n\nRecent legislative changes 
 further increase Apple’s legal burden. Senate Bill 497 (2024) amended 
 Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 98.6 to create a rebuttable presumption of 
 retaliation if an employer takes adverse action within 90 days of an 
 employee’s protected activity. Because I was fired well within that 
 timeframe, Apple now bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing 
 evidence, that my termination was unrelated to my whistleblowing. 
 Additionally, California recently amended Labor Code § 230(e) to make 
 crime victim retaliation a standalone claim, reinforcing the legal 
 significance of my precedent-setting case. These legal developments, 
 combined with the court’s decision to allow my claims to proceed, make it 
 much more difficult for Apple to escape liability for its retaliation, 
 workplace violations, and environmental misconduct. \n\nIn addition, the 
 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has formally charged Apple with 
 violating federal labor law over my 2021 suspension and termination. The 
 NLRB’s complaint alleges that Apple unlawfully threatened me, placed me 
 on leave, suspended me, and terminated my employment in retaliation for 
 protected speech and workplace organizing. In addition, based on my October 
 2021 charges, the NLRB has also found that Apple maintains unlawful 
 employment policies restricting employee speech and organizing, which have 
 broader implications for Apple’s workforce. If the NLRB prevails, Apple 
 could be ordered to reinstate me with back pay, rescind its unlawful 
 policies, apologize to me, and take corrective action to prevent future 
 retaliation. Read more about the NLRB case here. \n\nThis case is about 
 more than just Apple—it is about whether corporate employers can violate 
 labor laws with impunity, whether whistleblowers can be silenced without 
 consequence, and whether companies can conceal environmental and workplace 
 safety violations by retaliating against those who speak out. The court’s 
 ruling confirms that Apple will be held accountable under California law, 
 and the NLRB’s prosecution will determine whether Apple also violated 
 federal labor laws. Apple has spent years trying to shut this lawsuit down, 
 but this ruling confirms that my claims are legally valid and must be 
 heard. With this decision, my case moves into discovery and trial 
 preparation, and I will now expand my pending Ninth Circuit appeal to 
 challenge the wrongful dismissal of my Toxic Tort and Intentional 
 Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claims, in addition to my RICO, 
 Cal. Biz & Prof. Code § 17200, breach of contract, Dodd-Frank, and SOX 
 whistleblower claims. The case against Apple is far from over, and I will 
 continue pushing for justice and accountability. \n\nFor the past several 
 years, I have been supporting myself financially on my own, funding this 
 legal battle while covering basic living expenses without income for most 
 of the period. I exhausted my savings, maxed out my credit cards, and am 
 now declaring bankruptcy. My unemployment insurance does not even cover my 
 rent, yet it still counts as "income," disqualifying me from government 
 assistance. As a result, I no longer have health insurance because I cannot 
 afford the premiums. Donations are deeply appreciated to help cover legal 
 expenses, including Westlaw, discovery software, and drafting tools, as 
 well as basic living expenses while I continue this fight. If you would 
 like to contribute, please visit: www.ashleygjovik.com/donate.html. Thank 
 you for your support — it truly makes a difference. \n\nI appreciate all 
 of the support from those following this case. I will provide further 
 updates as the case progresses. If you have any media inquiries or would 
 like to discuss these developments further, feel free to reach out. 
 \n\nAshley Gjovik, BS, JD, PMP\nashleymgjovik@protonmail.com\n\n 
 https://www.ashleygjovik.com\n\nMajor Labor Rights Victory: Apple Compelled 
 to Rescind Unlawful Employee Policies Nationwide Following My NLRB 
 Case\n[https://www.ashleygjovik.com/blog/04082025-nlrb-win-apple-compelled-to-rescind-unlawful-policies-nationwide](https://www.ashleygjovik.com/blog/04082025-nlrb-win-apple-compelled-to-rescind-unlawful-policies-nationwide) 
  \nApril 8 2025\nSilicon Valley, CA — Today marks a watershed moment for 
 corporate accountability and employee rights. The National Labor Relations 
 Board (NLRB) has finalized a nationwide settlement with Apple Inc., 
 requiring the tech giant to rescind a series of unlawful workplace policies 
 that suppressed lawful employee activities. This action follows years of 
 determined advocacy on my part, after I blew the whistle on Apple’s 
 practices.\n\nThe settlement forces Apple to overhaul its internal rules 
 governing employee speech, privacy, and workplace rights — changes that 
 apply to all Apple employees across the United States. Notably, this is the 
 first public labor settlement of its kind Apple has ever executed.\n\nUnder 
 this agreement, Apple must:\n\nPost public compliance notices on both its 
 internal intranet and external websites, visible for at least 60 
 days.\nRescind or revise overly broad policies concerning confidentiality, 
 proprietary information, workplace searches, public communications, and 
 employee discipline — with explicit clarifications that employees have 
 the right to discuss wages, working conditions, unionizing, and 
 whistleblower activities.\nSubmit direct proof of compliance to the NLRB 
 and me, including screenshots, certification forms, and evidence of 
 internal updates.\nCease using surveillance policies to monitor protected 
 employee activities.\nApple once claimed its policies were untouchable — 
 but this settlement proves otherwise. They fired me under these same 
 unlawful policies. This is more than personal vindication — it’s a 
 historic precedent for every tech worker silenced by overreaching corporate 
 controls.\n\n\n\nA Case of Corporate Denial vs. Legal Reality\n\nWhile 
 Apple refuses to admit liability under the settlement terms, their 
 agreement to overhaul these policies is a clear acknowledgment of prior 
 violations. Importantly, Apple will provide direct compliance documentation 
  — a rare and powerful accountability measure.\n\nIn my Statement of 
 Joinder to the NLRB agreement, I made clear:\n\nI preserve all legal 
 claims. The settlement does not resolve my pending federal lawsuits, other 
 NLRB cases, Department of Labor whistleblower complaints, or SEC filings 
 related to Apple’s misleading disclosures to shareholders​.\nI 
 challenged Apple’s pattern of public deception. Apple previously denied 
 in court, regulatory filings, and to investors that these policies were 
 problematic — even as it secretly negotiated this settlement to rescind 
 them​.\nI called for transparency. I continued to press for Apple to 
 publicly disclose its revised policy language and compliance materials, for 
 the benefit of employees and the public.\nThis isn’t over. Apple cannot 
 quietly fix its policies behind closed doors and pretend none of this 
 happened. Workers deserve full transparency. Shareholders deserve honesty. 
 Regulators must ensure accountability.\n\n\n\nMessage to Apple Employees 
 Nationwide\n\nIn a personal message included in my official NLRB filing, I 
 spoke directly to Apple’s workforce:  “To every Apple employee: you now 
 have clear, formal confirmation that discussing your pay, conditions, or 
 organizing is protected by law. If you’re told otherwise: they are wrong. 
 And you have the right to report it. Keep records. Know your rights. No 
 corporation is above the law — not even Apple.”\n\n\n\nImplications for 
 Tech Industry and Corporate Governance\n\nThis resolution sends a 
 resounding message across Silicon Valley and beyond: overbroad corporate 
 policies that chill lawful employee speech and organizing will not stand. 
 The case also highlights risks for corporate governance, as Apple’s 
 misleading statements to the SEC and courts remain under scrutiny in my 
 parallel proceedings.\n\nApple will remain under NLRB monitoring, and 
 future violations of the agreement could trigger renewed enforcement 
 actions.\nResources for Apple Employees:\n\nFile an NLRB charge: 
 [www.nlrb.gov](x-webdoc://6F30B41F-95B2-4346-940C-016524984A1A/www.nlrb.gov)\nContact 
 Ashley Gjovik: 
 [legal@ashleygjovik.com](mailto:legal@ashleygjovik.com)\n(Note: Gjovik is 
 not acting as legal counsel, but as a resource for peers navigating similar 
 issues.)\n\n\nCase References:\n\nNLRB Case: 32-CA-284428\nRelated Cases: 
 32-CA-282142, 32-CA-283161, 32-CA-284441\nSettlement Agreement (PDF): 
 [https://www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/set.32-ca-284428.apple_set_ag_signed_certified.pdf](https://www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/set.32-ca-284428.apple_set_ag_signed_certified.pdf) 
  \nStatement of Joinder (PDF): 
 [https://www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/set.32-ca-284428.apple_-_charging_party_letter_and_joinder.pdf](https://www.ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/set.32-ca-284428.apple_-_charging_party_letter_and_joinder.pdf) 
  \nBlog Post: 
 [https://www.ashleygjovik.com/blog/04082025-nlrb-win-apple-compelled-to-rescind-unlawful-policies-nationwide](https://www.ashleygjovik.com/blog/04082025-nlrb-win-apple-compelled-to-rescind-unlawful-policies-nationwide) 
  \n\n\nMedia Contact: Ashley M. Gjovik, 
 [legal@ashleygjovik.com](mailto:legal@ashleygjovik.com), 
 [www.ashleygjovik.com](x-webdoc://6F30B41F-95B2-4346-940C-016524984A1A/www.ashleygjovik.com)\nI’m 
 Ashley M. Gjovik — a lawyer, researcher, systems architect, and 
 internationally recognized whistleblower. Formerly a senior engineering 
 program manager and chief of staff at Apple Inc., I now champion corporate 
 accountability, worker rights, anti-corruption, and public transparency in 
 the tech industry.\n\n\nDemocratic Governor Newsom Killing Cal OSHA & 
 Harming Worker Safety\nCalifornia OSHA inspectors don’t visit worksites 
 even when workers are 
 injured\nhttps://calmatters.org/politics/2025/07/california-osha-inspections-state-audit/?_gl=1*1g6valp*_ga*MTUxMDkyNDE5LjE3NTMxNDAxMDU.*_ga_5TKXNLE5NK*czE3NTMxNDAxMDQkbzEkZzAkdDE3NTMxNDAxMDQkajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_DX0K9PCWYH*czE3NTMxNDAxMDQkbzEkZzAkdDE3NTMxNDAxMDQkajYwJGwwJGgw\n\nAvatar 
 photo\nBY JEANNE KUANG\nJULY 19, 2025\n\nA person carries a large plastic 
 bucket filled with produce on their shoulder while working in a field of 
 green crops during harvest. Surrounded by others bending over the plants, 
 the individual wears a long-sleeve shirt, hat, and face covering for sun 
 protection. A tractor and trailer are visible in the background under the 
 warm early morning or late afternoon light.\nFarmworkers harvest banana 
 peppers at a farm near the town of Helm on July 1, 2025. Photo by Larry 
 Valenzuela, \nIN SUMMARY\n\nNearly a third of Cal/OSHA positions were 
 vacant last year. A new state audit found that caused the agency to skip 
 in-person inspections, even when workers were injured.\nWelcome to 
 CalMatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to covering issues 
 that affect all Californians. Sign up for WhatMatters to receive the latest 
 news and commentary on the most important issues in the Golden 
 State.\nCalifornia’s worker safety agency is under-inspecting workplaces 
 after accidents and worker injuries, failing to enforce labor regulations 
 in a way that “may undermine” them because it does not have enough 
 employees to do the inspections, a state audit found. \n\nIn a review of 
 the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health published 
 Thursday, state auditors found understaffing was a primary factor leading 
 inspectors to skip in-person inspections of worksites even in cases where 
 auditors found — and division managers agreed — it was likely 
 warranted. \n\nNearly one-third of the division’s 800-plus positions were 
 vacant last year, a rate that is even worse in some district offices and 
 among some of the staff responsible for inspections and enforcement. 
 \n\n“When it does perform inspections, Cal/OSHA’s process has critical 
 weaknesses,” state auditor Grant Parks wrote. \n\nThe weaknesses, he 
 wrote, included inspectors failing to review employers’ required injury 
 prevention plans, document notes from interviews with workers, initiate 
 inspections quickly and ensure employers had addressed alleged hazards 
 before closing a case file.\n\nState law allows Cal/OSHA to inspect 
 workplaces in-person proactively, after accidents or in response to a 
 complaint. But it only mandates inspections for workplace deaths or 
 “serious” accidents, generally defined as those requiring inpatient 
 hospital care or resulting in “serious permanent 
 disfiguration.”\n\nEnforcement staff first determine if the complaints 
 are valid, and then often choose to inspect “by letter” instead, which 
 involves writing to employers asking them to investigate the complaints 
 themselves and document how they’ve addressed hazards. \n\nLast year out 
 of more than 12,000 complaints, the agency found 87% valid; staff inspected 
 just 17% of those workplaces in person rather than investigating “by 
 letter.” Out of 5,800 workplace accidents, the agency deemed 42% serious 
 enough to send an inspector. \n\nAuditors found staff didn’t always 
 investigate a complaint or inspect a worksite when they should have.\n\nIn 
 one case, a union representative filed a complaint saying that construction 
 workers were riding on heavy machinery on the road with no seat belts, and 
 another worker was hanging off the side of the vehicle, in danger of 
 falling and being hit in oncoming traffic. Cal/OSHA declined to investigate 
 because the incident was on a public road and therefore outside the 
 agency’s jurisdiction. But the audit found the agency should have opened 
 the complaint because workers were riding in a company vehicle — activity 
 covered by workplace safety regulations.\n\nAuditors reviewed another 
 complaint from a kitchen worker who was taken to the ER by ambulance, 
 possibly from heat illness. The worker reported poor ventilation, broken 
 air conditioning and temperatures that reached 90 degrees indoors. Despite 
 agency policies requiring on-site inspections for serious hazards involving 
 current employees, and for any heat-related complaints, Cal/OSHA sent the 
 employer a letter. Auditors reviewing the case records found the employer 
 had not responded. \n\nSerious injuries investigated by letter\n\nThe audit 
 also highlighted two injuries that Cal/OSHA said weren’t “serious” 
 enough to inspect in person; in one, a worker was cut by a chainsaw, 
 requiring surgery and an overnight hospital stay, and in another a worker 
 was knocked out when hit in the head and suffered a skull fracture, but was 
 not formally admitted to the hospital. \n\nIn the chainsaw case, managers 
 told auditors the worker was wearing protective equipment so there was less 
 reason to suspect workplace violations. In general, the audit found that 
 managers overwhelmingly reported understaffing as the reason for not 
 inspecting.\n\nThe agency, the audit noted, doesn’t have a complaint form 
 on its website. To file a complaint, workers must call or email a Cal/OSHA 
 district office, or fill out a complaint form on the federal OSHA website.  
 \n\nThe audit places further pressure on Cal/OSHA and its beleaguered 
 parent agency, the Department of Industrial Relations, to deal with a 
 trenchant staffing problem that advocates and lawmakers say renders some of 
 the strictest worker protections in the nation toothless. \n\nIt comes a 
 year after a similar audit of the Labor Commissioner’s Office, also a 
 part of that department, which found workers complaining to the agency 
 about wage theft were waiting more than two years on average to get their 
 claims resolved — six times longer than the time required by law. 
 \n\nBoth audits were ordered by state lawmakers, who are by now familiar 
 with the understaffing complaints. One bill this year would require the 
 department to study how to make more appealing career paths for the 
 inspector positions, some of which require engineering degrees.\n\nStephen 
 Knight, director of the advocacy group Worksafe, called the audit’s 
 findings “really disappointing.”\n\n“It confirms that California’s 
 promise to hold employers accountable remains unfulfilled,” Knight said. 
 “There’s a lot of good solid detail and suggestions in the audit, 
 nothing they couldn’t have figured out beforehand. Certainly what it 
 would require is resources and political leadership that sides with workers 
 over corner-cutting employers.”\n\nThe problem is urgent, he said, noting 
 workplace accidents have killed three teenagers in California just the past 
 two weeks: one who fell into a meat grinder at a burrito factory in Los 
 Angeles County and two who died in a fireworks warehouse explosion in rural 
 Yolo County.\n\nThe workplace agency has been the subject of several 
 investigations in recent years. Last year the Sacramento Bee found the 
 division of Cal/OSHA that recommends cases for criminal prosecution was so 
 understaffed it couldn’t even consider cases in which workers suffered 
 severe but nonfatal accidents, such as ones that caused paralysis. 
 CalMatters last year reported that the agency’s inspections and citations 
 of heat-related hazards had plummeted since the pandemic, despite the 
 rising risks of extreme heat for outdoor workers. \n\nIn a letter dated 
 June 27 responding to the audit, Department of Industrial Relations 
 director Katrina Hagen wrote that the department “has been working to 
 address structural and process issues, as well as recruitment and retention 
 issues,” including studying the agency’s pay and job responsibility 
 levels. Hagen wrote that Cal/OSHA’s vacancy rate had dropped to 12% this 
 year; the auditor responded they hadn’t seen up-to-date data showing 
 that. \n\nHagen also wrote that Cal/OSHA is working on making an online 
 complaint form, and said the agency is getting a new case management system 
 that will flag cases that should have gotten an in-person inspection, but 
 didn’t. Both upgrades, she wrote, are expected in 2027.\n\n‘What’s 
 the point?’\n\nThe audit also questioned Cal/OSHA’s practice of 
 reducing the fines it issued to employers after citing them for safety 
 violations. Employers often appeal citations, a process that can take years 
 to resolve, and the fines or violations can be reduced during settlement 
 conferences, but the auditors wrote that the reasons aren’t always 
 documented. In a four-year period reviewed by auditors, the average 
 reduction was more than half the original fine. \n\nAssembly Labor 
 Committee Chair Liz Ortega, a Hayward Democrat who requested the audit last 
 year, slammed the practice. \n\n“This Cal/OSHA standard operating 
 procedure can stop TODAY,” she wrote in response to a query from 
 CalMatters. “Injuries won’t abate until there are consequences. If 
 Cal/OSHA won’t do it, we should get  someone who will.”\n\nShe said she 
 wanted to see the agency increase its referrals for criminal prosecution to 
 5% of serious cases this year, and called the investigations that don’t 
 include in-person inspections “fake.”\n\n“Sending a letter!!!” 
 Ortega wrote. “What’s the point?”\n 
 https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2025/07/28/18878483.php
SUMMARY:Stop Poisoning Residents, Public Places/Workers at Apple Plant, Stop Retaliation of Workers
LOCATION:Apple Inc. Semiconductor chip manufacturing plant in Santa Clara, 3250 
 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara, CA\n
URL:https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2025/07/28/18878483.php
DTSTART:20250816T190000Z
DTEND:20250816T200000Z
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR