Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Fed Court Allows Major Retaliation Claims Against Apple to Proceed; NLRB Charges Apple
Ashley Gjovik, a whistleblower over environmental dangers and violation of labor rights at Apple has won the right to proceed with her case against Apple.
Federal Court Allows Major Retaliation Claims Against Apple to Proceed; NLRB Charges Apple with Labor Violations for Suspending & Firing Me
https://www.ashleygjovik.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIyxwdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRY93lyf0xELvJq58laNU4Tbrm8ZdVeBKGlE79fzd8AoJc9qfQoWNzmEQg_aem_ve_EBnZ6DI29o5xhWsgF2A
On 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.
The 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.
The 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.
In 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.
The 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.
One 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.
The 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.
Another 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.
In 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.
The 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.
The 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.
Recent 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.
Recent 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.
In 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.
This 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.
For 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: http://www.ashleygjovik.com/donate.html. Thank you for your support — it truly makes a difference.
I 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.
Ashley Gjovik, BS, JD, PMP
ashleymgjovik [at] protonmail.com
https://www.ashleygjovik.com
https://www.ashleygjovik.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIyxwdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRY93lyf0xELvJq58laNU4Tbrm8ZdVeBKGlE79fzd8AoJc9qfQoWNzmEQg_aem_ve_EBnZ6DI29o5xhWsgF2A
On 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.
The 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.
The 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.
In 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.
The 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.
One 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.
The 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.
Another 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.
In 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.
The 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.
The 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.
Recent 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.
Recent 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.
In 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.
This 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.
For 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: http://www.ashleygjovik.com/donate.html. Thank you for your support — it truly makes a difference.
I 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.
Ashley Gjovik, BS, JD, PMP
ashleymgjovik [at] protonmail.com
https://www.ashleygjovik.com
For more information:
https://www.ashleygjovik.com/?fbclid=IwY2x...
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$115.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network