~v
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 155
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`2 108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`(408) 883-4428
`legal@ashlevgjovik.com
`
`CLERK, U.S
`NORTH DISTFiig?TRICT COURT
`OF CALIFORNIA
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4597
`V2
`LB
`
`Case No.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK, an individual,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`APPLE INC, a corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
`1. Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower,
`18 U.S.C. §1514A
`2. Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower,
`15 U.S.C. §78u-6(h)(l)(A)(iii)
`1. Bane Civil Rights Act,
`Cal. Civ Code § 52.1
`2. Ralph Civil Rights Act,
`Cal. Civ Code§ 51.7
`3. Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt
`Organizations Act,
`18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (c), (d)
`3. Whistleblower Protection Act,
`Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5
`4. Retaliation for Filing Complaints,
`Cal. Labor Code§ 98.6
`5. Retaliation for Safety Activities,
`Cal. Labor Code§§ 6310
`6. Termination in Violation of Public Policy
`7. Intentional & Negligent Infliction of
`Emotional Distress
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT - TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`II. JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`III. VENUE .................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`IV. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 7
`
`V. NOTICE OF PENDENCY & CONFLICT OF LAWS ..................................................... 7
`
`VI. GENERAL AL LEGATIONS .............................................................................................. 9
`
`VII. LEGAL CLAIMS ............................................................................................................... 49
`
`A. SOX WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION (15 U.S.C. § 1514A) ......................................... 50
`
`i.
`
`Evidence of Pretext (to be incorporated in all discharge claims): ............................................ 52
`
`B. DODD FRANK WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION (15 USC §78u-6(H)(l)(A)(m)) ·········· 56
`
`C. BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: CAL. CIV. CODE§ 52.1.. ....................................................... 57
`
`D. RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: CAL. CIV. CODE §51.7 ....................................................... 60
`
`E. RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO) ................... 61
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Standing & Pleading ................................................................................................................. 62
`
`Conduct & Violations under 18 US.C. §1962(a), (c), (d) ......................................................... 6./
`
`iii. Creation, Nature, and Operation of the Enterprise ................................................................... 65
`
`a) Apple as a Corporate Defendant ........................................................................................... 66
`
`b)
`
`The "Worldwide Loyalty Team" Enterprise ......................................................................... 67
`
`iv. Pattern; Vertical and Horizontal Relatedness of Predicate Acts .............................................. 69
`
`V.
`
`The Schemes ............................................................................................................................... 76
`
`vi. Predicate Acts/Threats Involving Certain State Offenses ........................................................ 79
`
`a) Criminal Bribery of Executive Officer (Cal. Penal Code § 67) ............................................ 79
`
`a) Criminal Commercial Bribery (Cal. Penal Code § 641.3) .................................................... 81
`
`b) Criminal Extortion (California Penal Code § 518) ............................................................... 84
`
`vii. Predicate Acts Indictable Under Title 18 US Code .................................................................. 88
`
`a) Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud (18 US Code§§ 1341, 1343) ...................................................... 88
`
`b) Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant ( 18 U.S. Code § 1512) ..................... 92
`
`c) Retaliating against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant (18 U.S. Code§ 1513) ................ 102
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 3 of 155
`
`viii. Predicate Acts Indictable Under Title 11 USC (Securities) ................................................... 106
`
`a)
`
`Securities Fraud ( 15 USC § 78) .......................................................................................... I 06
`
`Predicate Acts Indictable Under §2332(b)(g)(5)(B) ............................................................... 110
`
`a) Relating to Chemical Weapons ( 18 USC § 229) ................................................................ 110
`
`Injury in Fact to Plaintiff due to Racketeering Act .................................................................. 116
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii. Continuity & Threat to Continue ............................................................................................. 120
`
`F. RETALIATION UNDER CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE ....................................................... 120
`
`i.
`
`California Whistleblower Protection Act: Cal. Labor Code §1102.5 ..................................... 121
`
`a) Video Recording in Bathrooms: Cal. Labor Code§ 435 .................................................... 122
`
`ii.
`
`Retaliation for Filing a Labor Complaint: Cal. Labor Code § 98. 6 ....................................... 12 3
`
`a) Retaliation re: Work Conditions: Cal. Labor Code §232.5 (via§ 98.6) ............................. 123
`
`b)
`
`Lawful Off-Duty Conduct: Cal. Labor Code § 96(k) (via 98.6) ......................................... 124
`
`iii. Retaliation for Safety Complaints: Cal. Labor Code § 6310 .................................................. 125
`
`a) Right-to-Know Retaliation: Cal. Labor Code §6399. 7 (via§ 63 I 0) ................................... 128
`
`G. WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (TAMNEY) ..................... 130
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Invasion of Privacy (Cal. Const. art. 1, § 1) ............................................................................ 133
`
`FTC Biometric Consent Rules ................................................................................................. 137
`
`iii. Breach Of Implied Contract: Good Cause Required (Foley/Banko) ...................................... 139
`
`H.
`
`INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ................................................. 140
`
`VIII. DEMAND FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................... 147
`
`A. SPECIAL REMEDIES ........................................................................................................ 150
`
`i.
`
`Exemplary and Punitive Damages ........................................................................................... 150
`
`ii. Medical Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 151
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`Special Damages ..................................................................................................................... 152
`
`Injunctive Relief ...................................................................................................................... 152
`
`IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................. 154
`
`X. CERTIFICATION AND CLOSING .............................................................................. 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`3
`
`1 l
`i
`! I.
`f
`
`I I r
`
`!
`f f
`
`I
`
`t
`!
`i [, I
`I
`l l
`I
`I I
`I I
`
`F
`
`J
`f
`!
`t
`l
`I
`~
`
`I t
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 4 of 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`This complaint details a complex regulatory-compliance-avoidance scheme
`
`conducted by Apple through a criminal enterprise, which Gjovik became caught up in after she
`
`complained about toxic waste exposure at her office, and then she reported Apple to federal
`
`agencies and law enforcement, and Apple decided to physically remove her from the scene of
`
`their apparent environmental crimes in order to prevent Gjovik from gathering of evidence, and
`
`then Gjovik was terminated the day before a federal affidavit about Apple's unlawful acts, ,
`
`shortly after complaining about 'witness intimidation' from a "Workplace Violence"
`
`interrogator. Gjovik realized it was all an effort to cover up regulatory failures under at least
`
`three federal environmental statutes which also implicated securities fraud concerns, and to
`
`cover up over five years of toxic exposure to a community by Apple who released metric tons of
`
`solvent vapors and lethal gases into home windows and made the residents severely ill, including
`
`Gjovik. Gjovik's termination was then followed with over two years of intimidation and
`
`attempts to coerce Gjovik to drop her charges.
`
`2.
`
`Ashley Gjovik ("Plaintiff') files this complaint against Apple Inc ("Defendant"),
`
`Gjovik's prior employer. Gjovik first attempted to pursue claims through agencies, but two years
`
`after those claims were filed, there still has not been any decisions on Gjovik's retaliation
`
`complaints. The US Department of Labor's statutory deadline to make a decision was February
`
`10 2022. The NLRB's case metrics position Gjovik's NLRB charges against Apple in the top
`
`1 % of aged charges overdue for a decision on merit. Thus, due to uncertainty with the
`
`government charges, Gjovik files this civil complaint prior to her civil two-year statute of
`
`limitations on September 9 2023. Gjovik is "kicking-out" her California Department of Labor
`
`24
`
`cases and US Department of Labor SOX whistleblower retaliation charge from the respective
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`agencies, and consolidates those matters with her other civil claims here.
`
`3.
`
`A RICO case is appropriate and required here because Apple's threats and
`
`retaliation against Gjovik, and conspiracy to conceal its corrupt and unlawful acts, violated
`
`federal criminal statutes for which there is no other appropriate private civil action. Apple's
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 5 of 155
`
`1
`
`retaliation against Gjovik was partially due to Gjovik reporting Apple to the FBI and US
`
`2 Department of Justice for multiple apparent criminal acts, and Gjovik's public accusations that
`
`3 Apple is actively violating the RICO Act- all of which Apple knew prior to Apple's abrupt
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`termination of Gjovik by a Worldwide Loyalty "Workplace Violence" investigator and without
`
`explanation. 1 This is quite literally a "RICO Act Whistleblower" case.
`
`4.
`
`In lieu of the US District Attorney's office deciding to pursue a criminal case
`
`against Apple, (which hopefully still may occur at some point), Gjovik's only path to seek
`
`holistic justice for the extensive harm she suffered due to Apple's egregious conduct is a RICO
`
`lawsuit. RICO also enables Gjovik to admit evidence to show that Apple's actions towards
`
`Gjovik were part of a larger criminal scheme, and to reflect the Russian-nesting-doll structure of
`
`Apple's tortious conduct and violations of ordinances, as part of statutory civil violations, as part
`
`of elaborate criminal schemes and enterprise.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`5.
`
`This court has both Subject Matter and Diversity jurisdiction over these claims.
`
`The District Courts of the United States have original and exclusive jurisdiction over two of the
`
`claims in this case, whistleblower retaliation under Sarbanes Oxley Act [18 U.S.C. §1514A] and
`
`Dodd-Frank Act [15 USC §78u-6(h)(l)(A)(iii]. This US District Court has federal question
`
`jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
`
`States," [28 U.S.C. § 1331], which provides original jurisdiction over many issues in this case
`
`including claims of federal RICO with Predicate Acts under US Code Title 15 and Title 18; 2 and
`
`interpretation of agency complaints under CERCLA [42 U.S.C. § 9601], RCRA [42 U.S.C.
`
`§6901], the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. §7401],3 complaints related to US CDC and FDA
`
`1 Gjovik complained to Apple about Apple violating RICO on August 21 2021, then posted a copy of
`that complaint on social media noting: "One issue I'm raising to them is literally RICO," and then
`"@"ed the US Depart of Labor. https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1429174603713 I 91936
`2 18 U.S.C. § 1965; Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990); Butchers' Union Local 498 v. SDC Inv.,
`Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538-39 (9th Cir. 1986).
`3 Gjovik's U.S. EPA CERCLA Complaint: August 29, 2021; US EPA RCRA/CAA Complaint: June
`12 2023, June 20 2023 Investigation, August~ 17 2023 Inspection
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 6 of 155
`
`programs;4 legal questions related to US FTC rules; 5 and issues related to US government
`
`sanctions on foreign countries. 6
`
`6.
`
`The District Courts of the United States also have diversity jurisdiction over this
`
`case because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are of diverse state
`
`citizenship. [28 U.S.C. § 1332]. Plaintiff is domiciled in New York. Defendant is a corporation
`
`headquartered in California.
`
`7.
`
`Despite the inconvenience for the Plaintiff ( who will request remote/video
`
`hearings, please), this case is proper in California instead of New York because it requires
`
`analysis of California Const. Art. 1, California Labor and Penal Codes, California common law
`
`related to employee terminations in violation of public policy (Tamney claims), California
`
`employee's constitutional right to privacy, and Santa Clara County "Toxic Gas" ordinances.
`
`8.
`
`The federal courts have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction on this case;
`
`thus, they may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the claims arise from the same
`
`case and controversy, share a common nucleus of operative fact, and would ordinarily be
`
`expected to be tried all in one judicial proceeding. 7 The state claims here require analysis of
`
`many of the same facts and legal questions as the federal claims, including: the retaliatory
`
`termination, other whistle blower retaliation, filing of complaints with the employer and with the
`
`government, environmental and health/safety concerns, threats and intimidation, and obstruction
`
`of justice. 8 If the state causes of action in this complaint were tried separately, there would be
`
`duplicative trials concurrently holding hearings on many of the same facts and legal questions.
`
`III.
`
`VENUE
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the District Court of Northern California because Apple is
`
`headquartered and operates in this district and a substantial amount of Gjovik's claims arose
`
`from acts, omissions, and injuries within the District of Northern California.
`
`4 Gjovik's U.S. DOJ National Center for Disease Fraud (NCDF) Complaint: Sept 3, 2021
`5 Gjovik's FTC Report #154835129
`6 Gjovik's U.S. DOJ FBI Complaint: Sept 3, 2021
`7 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 245 (2007).
`8 California Department of Labor: Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc., (RCI-CM-842830)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 7 of 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`10.
`
`Divisional Assignment: Plaintiff files this complaint to the San Francisco
`
`Division, however either the San Jose or San Francisco Division are proper as a substantial part
`
`of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim both occurred in Santa Clara County (Santa
`
`4 Clara city, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale) and in San Francisco County (San Francisco city). Apple
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`conducts day-to-day commercial activities within both counties. Apple has engaged in
`
`substantial, continuous, and systemic activities within both counties, providing for a fair and
`
`reasonable basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Apple by this Court in either
`
`division. [Civil L.R. 3-5(b)].
`
`IV.
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Ashley Gjovik (pronounced "JOE-vik"), was an employee of Apple Inc and
`
`covered person under applicable statutes in this complaint. Gjovik is a natural person holding a
`
`Juris Doctor and appearing Pro Se. As of September 2022, Gjovik now resides and is domiciled
`
`in Albany New York. Gjovik lived in Santa Clara from February 2020 through October 2020,
`
`and then again August 2021 through August 2022. Gjovik lived and worked in San Francisco
`
`County from October 2020 through August 2021. Gjovik established a consulting LLC in
`
`California in 2022 which she continues to manage with a virtual office in Sacramento, and which
`
`is also registered in Albany New York.
`
`12.
`
`Apple Inc, is a business engaged in and affecting interstate commerce. Apple is a
`
`corporation headquartered in Cupertino California. Defendant has offices, retail stores, call
`
`centers, data centers, and other facilities in numerous US states and foreign countries.
`
`V.
`
`NOTICE OF PENDENCY & CONFLICT OF LAWS
`
`1.
`
`Gjovik' s SOX whistleblower retaliation claim was filed August 29 2021 and the
`
`case was docketed on December 12 2021. 9 SOX whistleblower retaliation charges begin with US
`
`Department of Labor but then allow a "kick-out" of the charge if the US Department of Labor
`
`has not issued a decision within 180 days. The case has been pending without resolution over
`
`9 Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, Apple Inc./Gjovik/9-3290-22-051; OSHA 11 ( c) Procedures: 29 CFR
`Part 1977, EPA Procedures: 29 CFR Part 24, SOX Procedures: 29 CFR Part 1980
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 8 of 155
`
`180 days. US District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over "kicked-out" SOX whistleblower
`
`retaliation claims.
`
`2.
`
`Gjovik was forced to leave her CERCLA and OSHA whistleblower retaliation
`
`cases with US Department of Labor as their exclusive jurisdiction is with US Department of
`
`Labor and there is no way to remove the two charges to US district courts for a trial. The status
`
`of those charges is detailed in RICO Predicate Act "Criminal Extortion."
`
`3.
`
`Gjovik filed retaliation and labor code violation charges to the California
`
`Department of Labor on August 29 2021 and the initial interview was conducted in October
`
`2021. California Department of Labor has not started the investigation of Gjovik' s California
`
`case and the statutes allow an option for the complainant to take the matter to a court instead
`
`waiting on an agency decision. This lawsuit will replace the California Department of Labor
`
`DIR case RCI-CM-842830.
`
`4.
`
`NLRB charges cannot be removed to court as the NLRB has exclusive
`
`jurisdiction to adjudicate cases under the NLRA. Gjovik is a witness for the NLRB and some of
`
`the 1512 and 1513 Predicate Acts in this complaint were part of a scheme to keep Gjovik from
`
`testifying or providing evidence, and to coerce her to withdraw and drop her charges. This civil
`
`case will hopefully relieve the witness intimidation and retaliation Gjovik has suffered from
`
`Apple. The NLRA cannot preclude a federal RICO claim where a RICO Predicate Act arises
`
`from conduct that also violates another federal statute, as then that conduct is also a federal or
`
`state crime. 10
`
`5.
`
`Similarly, the state causes of action are not pre-empted solely because they
`
`impose liability over and above that authorized by federal law. 11 The 9th Circuit found, "there is
`
`no clear and manifest intent on the part of Congress to pre-empt all state tort laws that
`
`traditionally have been available to those persons who ... allege outrageous conduct at the
`
`hands of an employer. That would require us to conclude that Congress has displaced not only
`
`10 Torres v. Vitale, 954 F .3d 866, 874-75 (6th Cir. 2020)
`11 California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 105 (1989)).
`
`8
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 9 of 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`state tort law ... but also state criminal law, to the extent that such criminal law is applied to
`
`retaliatory conduct ... " 12
`
`VI.
`
`GENERALALLEGATIONS
`
`I.
`
`In 2014, Oaktree Capital and Hines purchased 825 Stewart Drive (Gjovik's future
`
`office and about which she would be terminated in 2021). In 2014, Ronald Sugar was an Apple
`
`Board member and chair of Apple's Finance and Audit committee, and also the lead independent
`
`director for the Chevron board. In 2014, Robert Denham was a Chevron Board Member, an
`
`Oaktree Capital Board member, and a Board member of the James Irvine Foundation. 13 Under
`
`information and belief, Ronald Sugar brokered the sale of 825 Stewart Drive to Oaktree Capital
`
`and the lease of 825 Stewart Drive to Apple, exploiting his position on the Chevron Broad.
`
`2.
`
`Ashley Gjovik (Plaintiff) worked for Apple Inc (Defendant) from February 23
`
`2015 until Apple terminated Gjovik's employment on September 9 2021 effective September 10
`
`2021. During her tenure with Apple, Gjovik led numerous high-profile projects. She participated
`
`in engineering project management of numerous high-profile products such as the iPhone, iPad.
`
`iPod, Apple Watch, MacBook MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and Mac Pro and high-profile
`
`projects such as the launch of the Apple Music subscription service, Apple's transition of
`
`computers from Intel to Apple silicon, and work to establish the first company-wide Artificial
`
`Intelligence ethics policy.
`
`3.
`
`During Gjovik's nearly seven years with Apple, she was a significant contributor
`
`in developing and improving critical process and policies, mentoring employees, and managers,
`
`and providing strategic advice to executives. She has been praised for everything from "saving
`
`Apple money" to "driving better testing and higher quality in Apple's software." Her direct
`
`supervisor at the time of her termination previously illustrated what he called Gjovik's'
`
`"amazing worR' as: "the combination of broad networking, collaboration, understanding of
`
`26 many technical and non-technical areas;" "providing deep and meaningful insights;" and
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12 Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2000); Torres v. Vitale.
`954 F.3d 866, 871 (6th Cir. 2020).
`13 Chevron, https://chevroncorp.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/former-salomon(cid:173)
`inc-chairman-robert-e-denham-e lected; https:/ /chevroncorp.gcs-web.com/node/19621 /html
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`9
`
`I t
`
`f
`f
`i
`i
`!
`f
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 10 of 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`"connecting people for more collaboration." He went on to say Gjovik had "become a mentor to
`
`people around the organization" around "relationship skills," "crafting presentations,"
`
`"increasing visibility and network," and "coaching on tough conversations."
`
`4.
`
`Gjovik's importance to Apple Inc was exemplified in her many outstanding
`
`performance reviews. These included Apple's award to Gjovik of large bonuses and raises due
`
`to her strong performance. Gjovik's performance never necessitated any performance
`
`improvement plan, nor did Apple ever issue any negative written reviews. In fact, Apple told
`
`Gjovik that she was an extremely valuable member of the company. At different times she was
`
`told by her supervisors that she was both "key talent" (unreplaceable) and a "high performer."
`
`Every annual performance review at Apple, Gjovik received at least one "Exceeds
`
`Expectations."
`
`5.
`
`Gjovik started at Apple on February 23 2015. Gjovik experienced hostility from
`
`the start of her employment. In her first year, her colleagues created one whiteboard of insulting
`nicknames, another with tallies for points for "making [her J want to quit, " and filed a ticket in
`
`the Radar work tracking tool entitled "Make Ashley's Life a Living Hell. ''
`
`6.
`
`Despite knowing that she suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
`
`stemming from childhood trauma (which she shared why pleading for them to stop), Gjovik's
`
`colleagues would try to startle her, make her scream, and attacked her with Nerf guns and
`
`dodgeballs. Gjovik complained of these activities to Apple's Employee Relations team in July
`
`and August 2021, noting in an email on July 21 2021 that her coworkers had created a
`
`video/audio recording of her "screaming bloody murder" while they attacked her with dodge
`
`balls, then created a 'remix' version of her screams and shared it with the team, while they were
`
`"laughing hysterically."
`
`7.
`
`Gjovik was assigned to share an office with Rob Marini. Marini told her during
`
`the first week that prior coworkers who had shared an office with him previously had either quit,
`
`left the country, or committed suicide. Marini joked about which of those paths she would
`
`follow. Marini often made cruel and awful 'jokes' like that, despite Gjovik's complaints. One
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 11 of 155
`
`time, when she made a minor mistake drafting an XML document, Marini responded that
`
`everyone would be better off if Gjovik 's "mother had had an abortion. "
`
`8.
`
`One of primary aggressors of the harassment at the time was a colleague named
`
`Brad Reigel. Reigel often made comments about Gjovik, calling her fat, an idiot, or stupid. In
`
`December 2015, Reigel made her stay in an office conference room against her will, where he
`
`yelled at her while she cried. He would also often make somewhat violent jokes targeting her
`
`including but not limited to that he was going to "smack" Gjovik. These remarks were all the
`
`more concerning considering that he was known for bringing firearms into the office, and Gjovik
`
`had seen ammunition at his desk.
`
`9.
`
`Reigel had also destroyed objects when upset at work, including infamously
`
`striking a chocolate Easter bunny on a table to knock off its 'head' while screaming at a QA
`
`Director. Marini also claimed Reigel has previously physically 'flipped a table' during a work
`
`meeting while he was upset. Reigel was also an active police officer with a local Police
`
`Department. Gjovik and her coworkers occasionally referred to him as "Officer Reigel."
`
`10. When Gjovik complained to Venkat about Reigel and Marini's behavior, Venkat
`
`acknowledged it was inappropriate but his suggestions for Gjovik in response to the misconduct
`
`included things like dumping the liquor bottles they had in their offices and replacing the liquor
`
`with water and food coloring. Indeed, it was a regular occurrence for the team to drink at work
`
`during work hours, and regularly coerced Gjovik to do the same, despite Gjovik's protests.
`
`11.
`
`In August 16 2021, when Gjovik's complained to Apple Employee Relations
`
`about her team from 2015-2016, Gjovik also noted Memula's own work-time intoxication, with
`
`Apple noting: "You mentioned that Memula would snuggle up on you while drunk, whisper to
`
`you, and say things that made no sense." Gjovik cited evidence including "see photograph of
`
`during one instance with documentation of his phases of drunkenness on whiteboard including
`
`these behaviors, then following photo of him '·crucifying" himself upon said whiteboard
`
`writing."
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 12 of 155
`
`1
`
`12.
`
`One of Gjovik's coworkers on this team claimed to have familial connections to a
`
`2 major organized crime family. If this court finds direct ties to organized crime required for the
`
`3 RICO case, Gjovik will plead those details under seal.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13.
`
`A federal-court appointed monitor overseeing Apple following a 2013 judgement,
`
`issued his third report on Apple on April 16 2015. 14 The federal Monitor described Apple's
`
`behavior related to the monitor and monitoring program as "inappropriate" and "adversarial,"
`
`and complained of Apple refusing to provide information on regulatory compliance as ordered
`
`by a federal judge. 15 He also complained that Apple had placed the new "Compliance Officer''
`
`in a position reporting to Tom Moyer (who leads Worldwide Loyalty) instead of directly
`
`reporting to the Apple Board, which the monitor called a "conflict of interest" that was
`
`"intentional" by Apple, and would compromise her ability, or even willingness, to challenge
`
`Apple's "risky business decisions." 16
`
`14.
`
`On October 15 2015, the federal monitor complained that the chair of Apple's
`
`Finance and Audit Committee admitted to not reading the monitors reports beyond reading the
`
`"executive summary", and upon feedback, Apple protested it was "bizarre" to expect the Chair,
`
`Ronald Sugar, to read the entire report from a federal-court-appointed monitor as the result of a
`
`lawsuit against Apple by the federal government, of which Apple lost and was found to have
`
`violated the Sherman Act, despite Sugar being the Chair of the Audit & Finance Committee
`
`which claims to oversee regulatory compliance, including antitrust. The monitor also
`
`complained the conflict of interest with the Compliance Officer still had not be resolved. Finally,
`
`the monitor also complained that Apple continued to refuse to provide information about their
`
`policies and procedures for investigating possible regulatory compliance issues. The monitor
`
`noted "remarkable resistance" from Apple on complying with the court order. 17
`
`14 3rd Report of the External Compliance Monitor United States v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 1 :12-CV-
`2826, and State of Texas v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., et al., No. 1: 12-CV-3394 (April 14, 2015).
`1s Id.
`16 Id.
`17 Fourth Report of the External Compliance Monitor United States v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. I: I 2-
`CV-2826, and The State of Texas, et al. v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., et al., No. 1: l 2-CV-3394
`(October 15 2015).
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`SEPT. 7 2023
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 1 Filed 09/07/23 Page 13 of 155
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`15.
`
`In 2015 Apple started stealth semiconductor manufacturing and silicon
`
`fabrication activities in a facility located at 3250 Scott Boulevard Santa Clara California. Apple
`
`was cited for building, environmental, health/safety, and fire code violations in at least 2015,
`
`2016, 2017, and 2020. The factory vented its exhaust of solvents and toxic gases less than 300
`
`feet from a large apartment complex. Under information and belief, Memula's team was
`
`involved in the decision to construct and use the plant for prototype silicon fabrication.
`
`16.
`
`In 2015, Apple started semiconductor manufacturing at 3250 Scott Blvd (