# orderedItems[].content
🧵 When I started calling out #Apple in 2021, tons of ex-coworkers contacted me saying some version of: Apple was a huge d*ck, they sued Apple, the #litigation was the worst thing in their entire life & they can't even talk about it. What I'm observing first hand, & can tell you...

One of the biggest issues is litigation "protective orders". Apple's favorite employment defense firm for decades admitted on record she uses them in "every case"

It's a new #NDA with even less rights then the first

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
🧵 When I started calling out #Apple in 2021, tons of ex-coworkers contacted me saying some version of: Apple was a huge d*ck, they sued Apple, the #litigation was the worst thing in their entire life & they can't even talk about it. What I'm observing first hand, & can tell you...

One of the biggest issues is litigation "protective orders". Apple's favorite employment defense firm for decades admitted on record she uses them in "every case"

It's a new #NDA with even less rights then the first

# orderedItems[].content
🚨 Gjovik v Apple Update! ⚖️

The US EPA is finally suing Apple for Apple's egregious violation of environmental laws at Apple's secret fab in Santa Clara (the one where Apple nearly literally almost killed me in 2020, including documented arsine gas exposure & heart failure)

The EPA gave Apple a notice to show cause, & said they plan to file suit in less than 30 days

Read the notice here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.225.0.pdf

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
🚨 Gjovik v Apple Update! ⚖️

The US EPA is finally suing Apple for Apple's egregious violation of environmental laws at Apple's secret fab in Santa Clara (the one where Apple nearly literally almost killed me in 2020, including documented arsine gas exposure & heart failure)

The EPA gave Apple a notice to show cause, & said they plan to file suit in less than 30 days

Read the notice here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.225.0.pdf

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
Via Email
Receipt Confirmation Requested

Kevin Sung
EHS Engineer
Apple, Inc.
3250 Scott Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054
kevin_Sung@apple.com
RE: Notice of Potential Enforcement Pursuant to Section 3008(a) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Apple, Inc. (EPA Identification Number: CAR 000 278 176)
Dear Kevin Sung:
This letter is to notify you that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is preparing to
issue a civil administrative complaint against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), located at 3250 Scott Blvd in Santa
Clara, California, 95054 (“Facility”) pursuant to Section 3008(a) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a). This action is for violations discovered during
two for cause compliance evaluation inspections performed at the Facility on August 17-18, 2023, and
January 16, 2024.
The alleged violations against the Facility include:
1. Failure to make an accurate waste determination in violation of 22 C.C.R § 66262.11 [40 C.F.R.

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
. Operating without a permit in violation of 22 C.C.R. § 66270.1(c) [40 C.F.R. § 270.1(c)] by failing
to meet the conditions for exemption from the permitting requirement at 22 C.C.R.
§ 66262.17(a)2 [40 C.F.R. § 262.17(a)], which states that hazardous waste may not be stored onsite in the central accumulation areas for more than 90 days;
4. Failure to determine applicability of the air emission standards for tanks, and failure to control
air emissions from the Solvent Waste Lift Station tank in violation of 22 C.C.R. §§ 66265.1084 and
66265.1085 [40 C.F.R. §§ 265.1084 and 265.1085];
5. Operating without a permit in violation of 22 C.C.R. § 66270.1(c) [40 C.F.R. § 270.1(c) by failing to
meet the condition for exemption from the permitting requirement at 22 C.C.R.
§ 66262.17(a)(5)(A)3 [40 C.F.R. § 262.17(a)(5)(i)], which requires that containers be labeled as to
their contents and marked with the date clearly visible for inspection;
6. Fa

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
Any penalty discussed in settlement negotiations for violations of RCRA and its implementing
regulations will be calculated pursuant to EPA’s June 2003 “RCRA Civil Penalty Policy.”4 The penalty
policies are subject to inflation adjustments under the applicable Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Rule, as well as potential changes in EPA guidance.
Please note that, pursuant to regulations located at 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B, you are entitled to
assert a business confidentiality claim covering any part of any submitted information as defined in
40 C.F.R. § 2.201(c). Failure to assert such a claim makes the submitted information subject to public
disclosure upon request and without further notice to you, pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you are interested in commencing settlement
negotiations or have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Christopher Rollins, EPA
RCRA Inspector, at (415) 947-4166 or at rollins.christopher@epa.gov, or have your attorney contact
Tessa Allen, Office of Regional Counsel, at (415) 972-3297 or at allen.tessa@epa.gov.
 S

# orderedItems[].content
⚖️ Gjovik v Apple Update: NLRB just formally served Apple the final compliance packet. Apple must submit proof of posting to the NLRB by 4/28. The final documents include: the settlement agreement; compliance instructions; & posting obligations.

The official notice, which Apple is legally required to post internally and publicly, affirms:
💪 Employees may discuss wages, hours, conditions.
💪 Apple may not use its policies to silence or surveil.
💪 Apple is rescinded multiple unlawful policies.🧵⬇️

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
⚖️ Gjovik v Apple Update: NLRB just formally served Apple the final compliance packet. Apple must submit proof of posting to the NLRB by 4/28. The final documents include: the settlement agreement; compliance instructions; & posting obligations.

The official notice, which Apple is legally required to post internally and publicly, affirms:
💪 Employees may discuss wages, hours, conditions.
💪 Apple may not use its policies to silence or surveil.
💪 Apple is rescinded multiple unlawful policies.🧵⬇️

# orderedItems[].content
🚨 Major Legal Victory in My Case Against Apple! 🚨 A federal court ruled that my retaliation & labor law claims will proceed — including whistleblower, workplace safety, crime victim retaliation claims, & penalties! 🔥 This sets major precedent for privacy & env whistleblowing!

Full announcement below & here: https://www. ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/gjovik_v_apple_-_2025_03_03_update.pdf

Decision here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.179.0.pdf

Press here: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigati on/apple-4

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
🚨 Major Legal Victory in My Case Against Apple! 🚨 A federal court ruled that my retaliation & labor law claims will proceed — including whistleblower, workplace safety, crime victim retaliation claims, & penalties! 🔥 This sets major precedent for privacy & env whistleblowing!

Full announcement below & here: https://www. ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7/0/137008339/gjovik_v_apple_-_2025_03_03_update.pdf

Decision here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca p/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.179.0.pdf

Press here: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigati on/apple-4

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
Re: Federal Court Allows Major Retaliation Claims Against Apple to Proceed;
NLRB Charges Apple with Labor Violations for Suspending & Firing Me
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. Bloomberg covered the
ruling: Read the article & I posted about it in a blog post.
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

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
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

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
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 po se 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 prote ctions 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
b

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
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 lega l 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 

# orderedItems[].content
Photo of me dealing with Apple over the last three years:

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
Photo of me dealing with Apple over the last three years:

# orderedItems[].attachment[].name
image of meme with three photos of mountain goats hanging on to almost completely vertical walls and hills and it says "when people waiting on your downfall but you a goat"