Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 1 of 78
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propr ia Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95 816
`
`(408) 883 -4428
`legal@ash ley gjov ik .com
`
`United States District Court
`
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.C. Case No. 3:23-CV-04597 -EMC
`
`
`Ninth Circuit Case No. 24-6058
`
`
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik ,
`
`an individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff’s Fifth
`
`Amended Complaint
`
`
`Claims: Civil Litigation
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
` a corporation , et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 2 of 78
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TAB LE O F C ON TE N T S ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2
`
`SU M M ARY OF T HE C ASE ................................ ................................ .............................. 1
`
`J UR I S D IC T IO N & VE N UE ................................ ................................ ............................... 2
`
`PAR TI ES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3
`
`PR OC E D UR A L HI STO RY ................................ ................................ ................................ 3
`
`STATE M E N T OF FAC T S ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4
`
`I .
`
`LO C AT I O N 1 : 3 25 0 S C OT T B LV D, S A N TA C L A R A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`
`I I . G J O V I K ’ S C H E M I C A L I N J U R I E S I N 20 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`I I I .
`
`I V.
`
`LO C AT I O N 2 : 8 25 S T E WA R T D R . , S U N N Y VA L E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
`
`G J O V I K ’ S E M P L OY M E N T AT A P P L E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
`
`V. G J O V I K ’ S I N Q U I R I E S & C O M P L A I N T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
`
`VI .
`
`C O N T I N U E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
`
`LEG AL C L A IM S: R E TA LI ATI ON ................................ ...................................................... 4 0
`
`VI I .
`
`K N O W L E D G E O F P R OT E C T E D A C T I V I T I E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1
`
`VI I I .
`
`C O U N T O N E : W R O N G F U L D I S C H A R G E I N V I O L AT I O N O F P U B L I C P O L I C Y (TA M N E Y C L A I M ) . . . . . . . . . 4 2
`
`A .
`
`I lle g a l Da ta H a r v e st in g [ Ca l. Co n st . A r t ic l e I , S e c t io n 1; F TC Ac t ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
`
`B.
`
`Em p lo y m e nt D isc r im in a t io n [ Ca l . D FE H ; U. S . E EO C ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
`
`C.
`
`C rim e V ic t im / W i t n e s s D i sc rim in a t io n [ Ca l. L a b o r Co d e § 2 30 (e ) ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
`
`D.
`
`L e g i sl a t i ve W it n e s s Di sc ri m in a t io n [C a l. Go v. Co d e § 9 41 4 ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4
`
`I X.
`
`C O U N T T W O: C A L I F O R N I A W H I S T L E B L O W E R P R OT E C T I O N A C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
`
`X .
`
`C O U N T T H R E E : C A L . L A B O R C O D E § 6 31 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6
`
`XI .
`
`C O U N T F O U R : C A L . L A B O R C O D E § 9 8. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
`
`E .
`
`F.
`
`Vio la t io n o f Ca l. L a b .C . § 98 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
`
`Vio la t io n o f Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § 2 32 . 5 v i a §§ 9 8. 6, 98 . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
`
`G. Vio la t io n o f Ca l. L a b o r C o d e § § 2 32, 2 32 . 5 via § § 98 . 6, 9 8. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8
`
`Fif th Amended C omplaint | Case No. 3 :23 -C V-0459 7-EMC
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 78
`
`H . Vio la t io n o f Ca l. L a b .C . § 96 (k ) v ia § § 98 . 6, 9 8. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0
`
`L E GA L C L AI M S : T O X I C T O RT S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`
`X II . T O L L I N G T H E O R I E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
`
`X II I . C O U N T F I V E : P R I VAT E N U I S A N C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3
`
`X IV. C O U N T S I X: I I E D – F E A R O F C A N C E R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
`
`L E GA L C L AI M S : O UT R AGE O US CO N D U CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
`
`XV.
`
`C O U N T S EV E N : II E D – O U T R AG E O U S C O N D U C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
`
`I .
`
`Vic a r i ou s L i a b il it y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8
`
`J . E x c e rp t s of H aras s m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2
`
`K . Ou t rag e ou s Pe r Se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9
`
`L .
`
`I n ju r i es an d I m p a c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0
`
`M.
`
`St a t u t e o f L im i t a t ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2
`
`PR AYE R FO R R EL I EF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3
`
`C ERT I F I CAT IO N AN D C L O S I N G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fif th Amended C omplaint | Case No. 3 :23 -C V-0459 7-EMC
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 4 of 78
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit arises from Apple Inc’s (“Defendant”) reckless disregard of environmental
`
`regulations and safety requirements at two different Silicon Valley properties, and subsequent concealment
`
`of their unlawful acts and the extensive harm they caused.
`
`2.
`
`In 2020, Apple severely injured and nearly killed Ashley Gjovik (“Plaintiff”) with Apple’s
`
`unlawful toxic waste dumping from a stealth semiconductor fabrication facility in Santa Clara, California.
`
`(Gjovik did not discover that Apple was responsible for her injuries until 2023, but Apple is believed to have
`
`known by mid-2021). In 2021, Gjovik also exposed that Apple was violating health, safety, and environmental
`
`rules and regulations at her team’s office located on a triple Superfund site in Sunnyvale, California (“the
`
`Triple Site”).1
`
`3.
`
`Gjovik filed environmental and safety complaints and partnered with numerous government
`
`agencies to document and investigate the issues. Apple repeatedly made statements to Gjovik instructing
`
`her not to talk to her coworkers or the government about her safety and compliance concerns, pressured her
`
`to not ask questions, prevented her from gathering evidence, and attempted to conceal their unlawful
`
`activities from her and from the government.
`
`4.
`
`Apple management retaliated against Gjovik as soon as Gjovik started asking questions and
`
`expressing concerns, repeatedly said the retaliation was because of her safety and environmental complaints,
`
`they incited and encouraged others to harass and intimidate Gjovik, and Apple took negative employment
`
`actions against Gjovik in an attempt to coerce her to quit the company; but when she did not quit, Apple
`
`fired her.
`
`5.
`
`Apple’s explanation for terminating Gjovik has changed multiple times, was not shared at all
`
`with Gjovik until a week after her termination, and the proffered reason is pretextual but unlawful itself. Over
`
`three years later, Apple still has not disclosed who initiated the decision to terminate Gjovik’s employment
`
`and has refused Gjovik’s requests for them to provide this information.
`
`6.
`
`During Apple’s marathon of retaliation against Gjovik in 2021, Gjovik was in law school
`
`studying to become a human rights lawyer. She was in a unique position to effectively report serious
`
`environmental and safety issues, and to lobby for general policy reform. Gjovik utilized her knowledge,
`
`experience, and resources to confer with numerous government agencies, to meet with a variety of elected
`
`
`1 The “Triple Site” refers to three specific toxic waste dumps in Sunnyvale, California with a merged mega-plume of
`solvent pollution in the groundwater. One of the three plumes (the “TRW Microwave” site) is directly beneath
`Gjovik’s office.
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 5 of 78
`
`officials and their staff, to publish op-eds calling for new legislation, was interviewed and written about by
`
`the press, and served as a witness for government agencies and legislative committees.
`
`7.
`
` Gjovik spoke out publicly, organized with her coworkers, lobbied on their behalf, and called
`
`for systemic change with Apple’s environmental and labor practices. Gjovik’s public advocacy also brought
`
`awareness to her prior neighbors of the pollution issues where she had lived in 2020, leading to additional
`
`chemical exposure victims coming forward and joining Gjovik in complaining to the government and
`
`requesting help.
`
`8.
`
`In 2021, Gjovik filed timely retaliation and discrimination complaints with multiple
`
`administrative agencies including the U.S. NLRB, U.S. EEOC, U.S. Dept. of Labor, California Dept. of
`
`Labor, and California DFEH. The U.S. EEOC and state claims were merged into this civil lawsuit. The U.S.
`
`Dept. of Labor CERCLA whistleblower retaliation case is currently with the Administrative Review Board.2
`
`9.
`
`The U.S. NLRB is actively prosecuting Apple over their unlawful employment policies, per
`
`Gjovik’s Oct. 2021 charge. NLRB will initiate prosecution imminently against Apple for its retaliation and
`
`unfair labor practices committed against Gjovik, including suspending her and terminating her
`
`employment.3
`
`10.
`
`Over the last three years, due to Gjovik’s investigations and advocacy, there have been
`
`multiple government inspections of Apple’s two facilities noted above, resulting in citations for
`
`environmental and safety regulatory violations, ordered corrective actions, and required monitoring. Gjovik
`
`still speaks with the U.S. EPA regularly as a community advocate about Apple and the two facilities.
`
`11.
`
`Apple continued harassing and retaliating against Gjovik after she was fired and through
`
`current day, intentionally interfering with and severely damaging her career, reputation, relationships,
`
`finances, physical condition, mental health, and just about every other aspect of her life.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`12.
`
`The United States District Courts 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].
`
`13. When the complaint was filed, Plaintiff was domiciled in the state of New York and is now
`
`domiciled in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Defendant is a corporation headquartered in California.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in the District Court of Northern California because Apple is headquartered
`
`
`2 Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc, 2024-CER-00001 (OALJ), 2024-0060 (ARB); CERCLA 42 U.S.C. §9610, Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C.
`§7622, RCRA 42 U.S.C. §6971, TSCA 15 U.S.C. §2622
`3 NLRA 29 U.S. Code § 158
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 6 of 78
`
`and operates in this district. Many of Gjovik’s claims arose from acts, omissions, and injuries within the
`
`District of Northern California. [Civil L.R. 3-5(b)].
`
`PARTIES
`
`15.
`
`Ashley Gjovik 4 (“Plaintiff”), is a natural person currently domiciled in Boston,
`
`Massachusetts. Gjovik holds a recently awarded Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara University School of
`
`Law and is appearing Pro Se.5
`
`16.
`
`Gjovik is a 38-year-old white woman with multiple disabilities including ADHD, PTSD,
`
`anxiety, panic disorder, depression, and autism.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Gjovik was an employee of Apple Inc from Feb. 2015 through Sept. 2021.
`
`Gjovik held a leasehold at a Santa Clara residential property (3255 Scott Blvd) adjacent to
`
`Apple’s semiconductor fabrication facility (3250 Scott Blvd) in Feb. 2020 through Oct. 2020.
`
`19.
`
`Apple Inc., (“Defendant”), is a business engaged in and affecting interstate commerce and a
`
`covered entity under the federal statutes at issue here.6 Apple is a corporation headquartered at One Apple
`
`Park Way in Cupertino, California. Apple says it “designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal
`
`computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related services.” As of Nov. 2024, Apple Inc.
`
`claimed a market cap of $3.4 trillion and annual revenue of $394.33 billion.7
`
`20.
`
`At all pertinent times, Apple was the tenant and operator controlling the facilities at both 825
`
`Stewart Dr. in Sunnyvale and 3250 Scott Blvd. in Santa Clara, California. At both properties, Apple
`
`registered its state and federal RCRA activities under its own name and with Apple EH&S as the contact for
`
`the government and public.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`21.
`
`Gjovik now files her Fifth Amended Complaint (“5-AC”). Gjovik filed her original complaint
`
`on Sept. 7 2023. The First Amended Complaint was filed in Oct. 2023 per stipulation, in order to allow
`
`Apple more time to prepare, as needed due to Apple’s delayed arrival in court. The Second Amended
`
`Complaint was filed on Dec. 21 2023 as a matter of course but was dismissed sua sponte by this court without
`
`
`
`4 Pronounced “JOE-vik”
`5 Gjovik established a consulting LLC in California in 2022, which she continues to manage with a virtual office in
`Sacramento at 2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816. The LLC address is used on papers for privacy.
`6 “Apple” refers to its successors and assigns; controlled subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and
`joint ventures; and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
`7 Apple Inc, 2024 10K, https://investor.apple.com/sec-filings/default.aspx
`
`
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 7 of 78
`
`prejudice and with leave to amend on Jan. 30 2024, ordering Gjovik to reduce the complaint length by over
`
`500 pages. The Third Amended Complaint was filed on Feb. 27 2024, met with a Motion to Dismiss and
`
`Motion to Strike, and was ruled upon with a decision and order issued May 20 2024. The Fourth Amended
`
`Complaint was filed on June 18 2024, also met with Motions to Dismiss and Strike, and was ruled upon with
`
`a decision and order issued Oct. 1 2024. Gjovik was ordered to revise her complaint again.
`
`22. On Oct. 1 2024, Gjovik filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, contesting
`
`denied injunctions, collateral orders, and the dismissal with prejudice of dozens of her claims mostly due to
`
`discretionary procedural reasons not related to the potential merit of the claims. Gjovik filed a pending
`
`Motion to Stay pending appeal.
`
`23.
`
`If the Ninth Circuit accepts the appeal, Gjovik intends to appeal at least the dismissals of her
`
`claims for RICO §§ 1962(a) and 1962(d); RICO §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d); whistleblower retaliation under the
`
`Sarbanes–Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts; violations of the Bane Civil Rights Act and the Ralph Civil Rights
`
`Act; Ultrahazardous Activities; Absolute Nuisance; Nuisance Per Se; Cal. Business and Professions Code
`
`§§ 17200 et seq.; Cal. Labor Code § 6399.7 and the “Right to Know” generally; Breach of the Implied
`
`Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; IIED with a basis of
`
`defamation and accusations of dishonesty; retaliation for protected labor complaints about slavery,
`
`apartheid, genocide, and “Muslim human rights”; and whistleblower protection for protected disclosures
`
`about smuggling, violations of sanctions, violations of environmental laws, federal crimes committed in
`
`furtherance of violations of environmental laws, racketeering, and certain privacy invasions violating the
`
`California Constitution.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`I. Location 1: 3250 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara
`
`24.
`
`In early 2015, Apple started stealth semiconductor fabrication activities in a facility located
`
`at 3250 Scott Blvd. in Santa Clara, California.8 Like some sort of Skunkworks, Apple codenamed the facility
`
`“ARIA” and even tried to use the codename on regulatory paperwork.
`
`25.
`
`The ARIA semiconductor fabrication facility operated less than three hundred feet from
`
`thousands of homes where Gjovik lived in 2020 (the Santa Clara Square Apartments). Also within 300 from
`
`
`8 “Semiconductor Fabrication Facility: A building or a portion of a building in which electrical circuits or devices are
`created on solid crystalline substances having electrical conductivity greater than insulators but less than conductors.
`These circuits or devices are commonly known as semiconductors.” Cal. Fire Code § 202 (2022).
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 8 of 78
`
`the building were two public parks (Creekside Park and Meadow Park), picnic tables, outdoor fitness
`
`stations, and a children’s playground. Within 1,000 feet of ARIA there was also a church, a school, an elder
`
`care facility, and the San Tomas Aquino Creek and public trail. (San Tomas Aquino Creek flows to the Bay
`
`and then into the Pacific Ocean).
`
`26. Upon initiating operations at ARIA, Apple was quickly cited for building, environmental,
`
`health, safety, and fire code violations in at least 2015 (stop work order due to construction without permits),
`
`2016 (spill of cooling water into storm drains, fire code and CalASPA violations, health and safety code
`
`violations, failure to properly monitor wastewater discharge), 2019 (wastewater testing violations), 2020 (fire
`
`code violations, using two EPA identification numbers, inaccurate hazmat inventory data, no spill plans or
`
`training, no business permit, no signature from supervisor on records, and failure to properly monitor
`
`wastewater discharge again).
`
`27.
`
`Apple intentionally vented its fabrication exhaust – unabated – and consisting of toxic solvent
`
`vapors, gases, and fumes – into the ambient outdoor air. The factory was one story, while the apartments
`
`were four stories tall, creating a high likelihood that Apple’s factory exhaust entered the interior air of the
`
`apartments through open windows and the 'fresh air intake' vents.
`
`28.
`
`City Fire Dept. records for ARIA contain at least sixteen chemical spill/leak incident reports
`
`at ARIA within only three years. These incident reports included eight confirmed leaks/spills: leaks of
`
`phosphine and silane on June 1 2019 at 9:17 AM; a phosphine leak on Oct. 21 2019 at 11:06 PM; a Tetraethyl
`
`Orthosilicate (“TEOS”) leak on July 17 2020 at 8:58 AM; a major phosphine leak on April 30 2021 at 8:29
`
`AM; a 5% fluorine gas leak on April 18 2022 at 10:42 AM, a Hexafluorobutadiene leak on May 29 2022 at
`
`2:19 PM, and leaks of two unnamed toxic gases on Sept. 20 2022 at 7:44 AM and Dec. 21 2022 at 1:40 AM.
`
`29.
`
`Further, later in 2021-2022, Apple reported to the government. that in the year 2020, Apple
`
`released at least 7.8 tons (15,608 pounds) of VOCs and 260 pounds of the combustible solvent N-Methyl-2-
`
`pyrrolidone (NMP) into the exterior air around ARIA. In 2022, the U.S. EPA severely restricted the legal
`
`use of NMP as “it presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health” under TSCA.
`
`30.
`
`Per a review of Apple’s manifests, Apple did not replace the carbon/charcoal in its exhaust
`
`system for over five years, with the first replacement occurring Dec. 14, 2020 – only after Gjovik had notified
`
`Apple EH&S and environmental legal about what occurred to her near ARIA. Apple also reported to the Bay
`
`Area Air Quality Management Board (BAAQMB) (in difficult to find agency filings) that in at least 2019-
`
`2021, ARIA exhausted reportable amounts of mercury, arsenic, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde into
`
`the ambient air around the factory.
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 9 of 78
`
`31.
`
`Apple’s leaks, spills, and releases were not limited to the air. Apple’s wastewater discharge
`
`monitoring repeatedly showed the presence of heavy metals and organic solvents. In 2017, the government
`
`mandated testing revealed the presence of 29 μg/L of 1,1-Dichloropropane, 24 μg/L of Trichloroethylene
`
`(“TCE”), and 6.7 μg/L of Ethyl tertiary-butyl ether (ETBE). Among other issues, it’s unclear why Apple
`
`had TCE on site but not in any of its chemical inventories, and then, in addition, why exactly Apple was
`
`pouring that TCE down the drain.
`
`32.
`
` ARIA reported an average daily water usage of around 44,000 gallons per day and the sewer
`
`pipes carrying ARIA’s discharges flowed downhill and directly around the apartment where Gjovik lived in
`
`2020. In 2020, the government had already started investigating the plumbing at her apartment as a possible
`
`vector for some unknown solvent vapor pollution.
`
`33.
`
`Apple was fully aware of this facility and its operations, including the vast amount of
`
`hazardous materials and hazardous waste, as every year, Apple submitted a financial assurance document to
`
`the Santa Clara Fire Dept. and HazMat agency, which detailed hazardous waste treatment and disposal
`
`operations, and is personally signed by Apple’s Chief Financial Officer, Luca Maestri – including affixing a
`
`company seal. Each financial assurance filing also attached a detailed confirmation letter from Apple’s third-
`
`party auditor, E&Y, on behalf of Apple. Maestri was also on the email distribution list for notification of
`
`hazardous waste violations at the facility.
`
`II. Gjovik’s Chemical Injuries in 2020
`
`34.
`
`In Feb. 2020, Gjovik moved into a large, new apartment at the Santa Clara Square
`
`Apartments (adjacent to ARIA) and quickly became severely ill. Gjovik suffered severe fainting spells,
`
`dizziness, chest pain, palpitations, stomach aches, exhaustion, fatigue, and strange sensations in her muscles
`
`and skin. Gjovik also suffered bradycardia (slow heart rate), volatile blood pressure with both hypertension
`
`and hypotension and a high frequency of premature ventricular contractions (an arrhythmia).
`
`35.
`
`From Feb. 2020 through Sept. 2020, Gjovik was screened for multiple severe and fatal
`
`diseases and disorders, including Multiple Sclerosis, brain tumors, deadly arrhythmias, and Neuromyelitis
`
`Optica – instead, all of Gjovik’s symptoms were consistent with chemical exposure. Due to the solvent
`
`exposure, Gjovik also suffered skin rashes, burns, and hives, and her hair fell out and she had a shaved head
`
`for nearly a year as the bald patches slowly grew back.
`
`36.
`
`Due to the sudden illness, Gjovik visited the Emergency Room on Feb. 13 2020, and Urgent
`
`Care (at AC Wellness, Apple’s for-profit in-house clinic) on Feb. 20 2020. Gjovik subsequently consulted
`
`with dozens of doctors, who screened her for all sorts of diseases, subjecting Gjovik to extensive blood draws,
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 10 of 78
`
`urine samples, injections, and scans – including potentially dangerous procedures like MRI and CT scans
`
`with contrast, of which Gjovik had multiple. Gjovik was too sick to work and went on disability.
`
`37.
`
`Gjovik transitioned her medical care to a different clinic and provider after her Apple primary
`
`care provider at AC Wellness refused to help her triage her 2020 medical issues (due to exposure to Apple’s
`
`factory exhaust). Instead, she suggested Gjovik could be suffering from anxiety, and enrolled Gjovik in an
`
`Apple internal user study related to blood pressure, requiring Gjovik share her iPhone medical and fitness
`
`data with Apple, and participate in weekly life coaching sessions (while being exposed to Apple’s solvent
`
`vapor and gas exhaust).
`
`38. While sick in 2020, Gjovik would wake up occasionally at 3 AM feeling like she was dying
`
`and with symptoms of heart failure and asphyxia. Heart monitoring showed arrhythmias, bradycardia, and
`
`low blood pressure. On Sept. 2 2020, Gjovik discovered elevated levels of volatile organic compounds
`
`(“VOCs”) in her indoor air. What immediately captured Gjovik’s attention was the large spike in VOCs had
`
`occurred the night prior, around 3 AM, while she had been suffering from one of these “dying” spells.
`
`39.
`
`Gjovik sought out multiple occupational and environmental exposure doctors, who told
`
`Gjovik that all of her symptoms were consistent with solvent and other chemical exposures. After Gjovik
`
`discovered her medical issues at the apartment were due to a chemical emergency, Gjovik quickly filed
`
`complaints with Santa Clara City HazMat/Fire Dept., Cal. EPA DTSC and Air Resources Board, and U.S.
`
`EPA. She also called Poison Control, who said what she described also sounded like Benzene exposure.
`
`(Apple reported it was exhausting benzene into the air).
`
`40. Notably, almost all of the reported toxic gas leaks during the time frames Gjovik had
`
`complained in 2020 that her symptoms seemed to always be the worst around 8-9 AM, 10-11 PM, and
`
`sometimes around 2-3 AM. One of the chemical spills that did not occur during those times of concern was
`
`root caused to an Apple engineer “accidently” turning on lethal fluorine gas. Similarly, another incident, the
`
`TEOS leak, was root caused to an Apple engineer accidently installing the gas for a tool “backwards.”
`
`Further, less than two weeks following the April 30 2021 phosphine leak, Apple’s manifests included sixty
`
`pounds of “vacuum filters contaminated with glass dust,” implying there may have also been a phosphine
`
`explosion.
`
`41.
`
`The TEOS leak occurred on July 17 2020, and that day Gjovik was suddenly covered in hives,
`
`rashes, and other skim abnormalities. She called and got a same day visit with a dermatologist who had no
`
`idea what was causing Gjovik’s issues.
`
`42.
`
`In Sept. 2020, Gjovik hired an industrial hygienist to test the indoor air at her apartment. She
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 11 of 78
`
`purchased an inspection, soil testing, and a two-hour sorbent tube-based TO-17 air panel. Only half the total
`
`contaminants were accounted for in the test and the California EPA informed her that testing with Summa
`
`canisters for 24 hours is superior and would have yielded better results. Still, Gjovik’s limited testing
`
`returned results showing a number of the chemicals in use by Apple at ARIA including Acetone,
`
`Acetonitrile, Acetaldehyde, Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Hexane, Isopropanol,
`
`Isopropyl toluene, Methylene Chloride, Toluene, and Xylene.
`
`43.
`
`In Sept. 2020, Gjovik set up additional air monitors to observe the levels of VOCs in her
`
`apartment next to the ARIA factory (though she was not aware of the factory exhaust at that time). The
`
`results of the data validated what Gjovik had noticed with her symptoms and ad hoc testing – that the VOCs
`
`mostly spiked early in the morning and late at night as if they were being exhausted from an automated
`
`mechanical system (which it was). Gjovik notified several Apple executives of her findings and activities,
`
`including her managers Powers (Director) and West (Sr. Director), her friends J.C. (Senior Director) and
`
`A.A. (Senior Manager).
`
`44.
`
`In Sept. 2020, Gjovik’s blood and urine medical tests returned results with industrial
`
`chemicals, including arsenic, mercury, toluene, and Xylenes. Also noteworthy are the symptoms of Gjovik’s
`
`3 AM attacks, (including both subjective reporting and physical real-time heart monitoring) match
`
`Phosphine and Arsine gas exposure. Both Phosphine and Arsine are very dangerous, exposure can be fatal,
`
`and there are no antidotes. Apple has a significant quantity of Arsine gas on site, and Gjovik’s medical tests
`
`from Sept. 2020, on the morning after one of the 3 AM attacks, revealed significant arsenic in her blood with
`
`no other explanation than Arsine gas exposure within the prior eight hours.9
`
`45.
`
`In Sept. 2020, Gjovik noticed an Apple facility at 3250 Scott Blvd. across the street, which
`
`was also on the Superfund groundwater plume. Gjovik mentioned the facility to Apple on at least Sept. 8, 9,
`
`10, and 13, 2020 – inquiring if anyone was familiar with the area because Apple had an office there. Apple
`
`EH&S and Gjovik had at least two phone calls. The woman who responded who was also actually in charge
`
`of Real Estate/EH&S teams involved in Gjovik’s Superfund office at 825 Stewart Dr. (“Stewart 1”) and the
`
`activities at ARIA.
`
`46.
`
`In Sept. 2020, the Apple EH&S manager, Elizabeth, suggested that Gjovik use a special paid
`
`leave to move out of the apartment called ‘extreme condition leave’ designated for disasters. Later, in Sept.
`
`2021, Apple Employee Relations, Waibel, conferred with Elizabeth about Gjovik’s environmental concerns
`
`9 US CDC, NIOSH, Arsine Emergency Response.
`
`
`
`Fif th Amende d C omplaint | D.C. Ca se No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
` Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 128 Filed 11/07/24 Page 12 of 78
`
`only hours before Gjovik were abruptly terminated.
`
`47.
`
`In Oct. 2020, Gjovik asked her manager from Apple Legal, Joyce, if she knew anyone who
`
`practiced environmental law because Gjovik may be interested in the fiel