Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD @ashleygjovik@mastodon.social
Public

🚨 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: ashleygjovik.com/uploads/1/3/7

Decision here: storage.courtlistener.com/reca

Press here: news.bloomberglaw.com/litigati

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 lawsengaging 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 rightsvalues. 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 bevidence, 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
0
0
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/114099638710247706 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)