Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 78
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`(408) 883-4428
`legal@ashleygjovik.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
`
`
`
`Demand for Jury Trial.
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
` a corporation , et al.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 78
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL CLAIMS .............................................................................................................................. 40
`
`KNOWLEDGE OF PROTECTED ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................................................40
`
`COUNT ONE: WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY .............................................................. 42
`
`COUNT TWO: CALIFORNIA WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION (CAL.LAB.C. § 1102.5) .............................................. 45
`
`COUNT THREE: CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 6310. ................................................................................................. 46
`
`COUNT FOUR: CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 98.6. ................................................................................................... 47
`
`TOXIC TORT TOLLING THEORIES ........................................................................................................................... 50
`
`COUNT FIVE: PRIVATE NUISANCE ........................................................................................................................... 53
`
`COUNT SIX: TORT OF FEAR OF CANCER & DISEASE ............................................................................................... 56
`
`COUNT SEVEN: TORT OF OUTRAGE ........................................................................................................................ 60
`
`Burglary, SWATing, & Destruction of Property..................................................................................................... 61
`
`Defamation, Trade Libel, Intimidation, Retaliation ............................................................................................... 63
`
`Stalking, Obstruction, & Deranged Harassment ................................................................................................... 65
`
`Injuries and Impact .............................................................................................................................................. 68
`
`VICARIOUS LIABILITY, RATIFICATION, & NEGLIGENCE .......................................................................................... 69
`
`CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................... 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Fifth Amended Complaint | Case No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC| Page ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 (Plaintiff did not discover that Apple was responsible for her injuries until 2023, but
`
`Apple is believed to have known by mid-2021). In 2021, Plaintiff also exposed that Apple violated
`
`health, safety, and environmental rules and regulations at her team’s office on a triple Superfund
`
`site in Sunnyvale, California.
`
`3. Plaintiff filed environmental and safety complaints and partnered with numerous
`
`government agencies to document and investigate the issues. Apple repeatedly made statements to
`
`Plaintiff instructing her not to talk to her coworkers or the government about her safety and
`
`compliance concerns, pressured her not to ask questions, prevented her from gathering evidence,
`
`and tried to conceal their unlawful activities from her and the government.
`
`4. Apple management retaliated against Plaintiff when she asked questions and expressed
`
`concerns. They repeatedly said the retaliation was because of her safety and environmental
`
`complaints. They incited and encouraged others to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff. Apple took
`
`negative employment actions against Plaintiff to coerce her into quitting the company, but Apple
`
`fired her when she did not stop.
`
`5. Apple’s explanation for firing the Plaintiff has changed multiple times and was not
`
`communicated until a week after her termination. The reason proffered is pretextual but unlawful
`
`itself. Three years later, Apple still has not admitted who initiated the decision to terminate
`
`Plaintiff’s employment and has refused Plaintiff’s requests for them to provide this information.
`
`6. During Apple’s marathon of retaliation against Plaintiff in 2021, Plaintiff was in law school
`
`studying to become a human rights lawyer. She was in a position to report serious environmental
`
`and safety issues effectively and to lobby for policy reform. Plaintiff used her knowledge,
`
`experience, and resources to confer with government agencies, meet with various elected officials
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`and their staff, publish op-eds calling for legislation, was interviewed and written about by the press,
`
`and served as a witness for government agencies and legislative committees.
`
`7. Plaintiff spoke out publicly, organized with coworkers, lobbied on their behalf, and called
`
`for change in Apple’s environmental and labor practices. Plaintiff’s advocacy also brought
`
`awareness to her prior neighbors of the pollution issues where she had lived in 2020, leading to
`
`more chemical exposure victims joining Plaintiff in complaining to the government.
`
`8. In 2021, Plaintiff filed retaliation and discrimination complaints with multiple
`
`administrative agencies, including the U.S. NLRB, U.S. EEOC, U.S. Department of Labor,
`
`California Department of Labor, and California DFEH. The EEOC and DFEH claims were merged
`
`into this lawsuit. The U.S. Department of Labor whistleblower retaliation case is currently with the
`
`Administrative Review Board.1 U.S. NLRB is prosecuting Apple for unlawful employment policies,
`
`per Plaintiff’s October 2021 charge.2 NLRB will start prosecution imminently against Apple for its
`
`retaliation and unfair labor practices committed against Plaintiff.
`
`9. Over the last three years, due to Plaintiff’s investigations and advocacy, multiple
`
`government inspections of Apple’s two facilities have been noted, resulting in citations for
`
`environmental and safety regulatory violations, ordered corrective actions, and required
`
`monitoring. The plaintiff still regularly speaks with the U.S. EPA (“EPA”) as a community
`
`advocate.
`
`10. Apple continued harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff after she was fired and through
`
`the current day, intentionally interfering with and severely damaging her career, reputation,
`
`relationships, finances, physical condition, mental health, and every aspect of her life.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11. The U.S. 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].
`
`When the complaint was filed, Plaintiff was domiciled in New York and is now domiciled in the
`
`
`1 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.
`2 NLRA 29 U.S. Code § 158.
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 5 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Apple is a corporation headquartered in California. The venue
`
`is proper in the District Court of Northern California because Apple is headquartered and operates
`
`in this district. Many of Plaintiff’s claims arose from acts, omissions, and injuries within the
`
`District of Northern California [Civil L.R. 3-5(b)].
`
`PARTIES
`
`12. Ashley Gjovik, (“Plaintiff”), is a natural person currently domiciled in Boston,
`
`Massachusetts.3 The plaintiff holds a recently awarded Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara
`
`University School of Law and is appearing as a pro se. The plaintiff was an employee of Apple Inc.
`
`from February 2015 through September 2021. The plaintiff held a leasehold at a Santa Clara
`
`residential property at 3255 Scott Blvd, next to Apple’s semiconductor fabrication at 3250 Scott
`
`Blvd, from February 2020 through October 2020.
`
`13. Apple Inc. is a business engaged in and affecting interstate commerce and a covered
`
`entity under the federal statutes at issue here.4 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
`
`November 2024, Apple Inc. claimed an annual revenue of $394.33B.5
`
`14. At all pertinent times, Apple was the tenant and operator controlling the facilities at both
`
`825 Stewart Drive in Sunnyvale and 3250 Scott Blvd. in Santa Clara, California at both properties,
`
`Apple registered its state and federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act activities under its
`
`own name and with Apple EH&S as the contact for the government and public.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`15. Plaintiff now files her 5th Amended Complaint (“5-AC”), in an abbreviated version but
`
`with the same substantive content as the prior 5-AC version. The plaintiff filed her original
`
`complaint on September 7 2023. The 1st Amended Complaint was filed in October 2023 per
`
`
`3 The plaintiff established a consulting LLC in California in 2022, which she manages with a virtual office
`in Sacramento. The LLC address is used on papers for privacy.
`4 “Apple” refers to its successors and assigns; controlled subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates,
`partnerships, and joint ventures; and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
`5 Apple Inc, 2024 10K, https://investor.apple.com/sec-filings/default.aspx
`
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 6 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`stipulation, to allow Apple more time to prepare, as needed due to Apple’s delayed arrival in court.
`
`16. The 2nd Amended Complaint was filed on December 21 2023 as a matter of course but
`
`was dismissed sua sponte by this court without prejudice and with leave to amend on January 30
`
`2024, ordering Plaintiff to reduce the length by over five hundred pages.
`
`17. The 3rd Amended Complaint was filed on February 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 4th 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 October 1 2024. The plaintiff was
`
`ordered to revise her complaint again.
`
`18. On October 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the 9th 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. The plaintiff filed a pending Motion to Stay pending appeal.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`19. 3250 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara: In early 2015, Apple started stealth semiconductor
`
`fabrication activities in a facility located at 3250 Scott Blvd. in Santa Clara, California. Like some
`
`sort of skunkworks, Apple codenamed the facility “Aria” and even tried to use the codename on
`
`regulatory paperwork. Apple’s intentional actions to obfuscate the owner and nature of the facility
`
`delayed Plaintiff’s discovery of Apple’s fabrication activities for years.
`
`20. The 3250 Scott fabrication operated less than three hundred feet from thousands of
`
`homes where Plaintiff lived in 2020, the Santa Clara Square Apartments. Within three hundred
`
`feet of the building were two public parks, picnic tables, outdoor fitness stations, and a children’s
`
`playground. Within one thousand feet of 3250 Scott, there was also a church, a school, an elder
`
`care facility, and the San Tomas Aquino Creek, which flows into the Pacific Ocean.
`
`21. At 3250 Scott, Apple was cited for building, environmental, health, safety, and fire code
`
`violations in 2015 (stop work order due to construction without permits), 2016 (spill of cooling
`
`water into storm drains, fire code and California ASPA violations, health and safety code violations,
`
`failure to monitor wastewater discharge adequately), 2019 (wastewater testing violations), 2020
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 7 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`(fire code violations, using two EPA ID numbers, inaccurate hazardous materials inventory data,
`
`no spill plans or training, no business permit, no signature from supervisor on records, and failure
`
`to monitor wastewater discharge again adequately).
`
`22. 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 high, 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.
`
`23. Santa Clara City Fire Department records for 3250 Scott include at least sixteen
`
`chemical spill reports at 3250 Scott within only three years. These reports included eight confirmed
`
`leaks/spills: leaks of phosphine and silane on June 1 2019; a phosphine leak on October 21 2019; a
`
`tetraethyl orthosilicate leak on July 17 2020; a significant phosphine leak on April 30 2021; a 5%
`
`fluorine gas leak on April 18 2022, a hexafluorobutadiene leak on May 29 2022, and leaks of two
`
`unnamed toxic gases on September 20 2022 and December 21 2022.
`
`24. Later, in 2021-2022, Apple reported to the government that in 2020, Apple released at
`
`least 7.8 tons (15,608 pounds) of volatile organic compounds and 260 pounds of the combustible
`
`solvent N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) into the exterior air. In 2022, the EPA severely restricted
`
`the legal use of NMP as “it presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health” under the TSCA.
`
`25. 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 December 14, 2020 – only
`
`after Plaintiff had notified Apple EH&S and environmental legal about what occurred to her near
`
`3250 Scott. Apple also reported to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board (“BAAQMD”),
`
`in difficult-to-find agency filings, that in at least 2019-2021, 3250 Scott exhausted reportable
`
`amounts of mercury, arsenic, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde into the ambient air around the
`
`factory.
`
`26. The 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,
`
`government-mandated testing revealed the presence of 29 μg/L of 1,1-dichloropropane, 24 μg/L
`
`of trichloroethylene, and 6.7 μg/L of ethyl tertiary-butyl ether. It is unclear why Apple had
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 8 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`trichloroethylene on site but not in any of its chemical inventories, and why exactly Apple was
`
`pouring that trichloroethylene down the drain.
`
`27. 3250 Scott reported an average daily water usage of around 44,000 gallons, and the sewer
`
`pipes carrying 3250 Scott’s discharges flowed downhill and directly around the apartment where
`
`Plaintiff lived in 2020. In 2020, the government had already started investigating the plumbing at
`
`her apartment as a vector for some unknown solvent vapor pollution.
`
`28. Apple was fully aware of this facility and its operations, as every year, Apple submitted a
`
`financial assurance document to the Santa Clara Fire Department which detailed hazardous waste
`
`treatment and disposal operations and was signed by Apple’s Chief Financial Officer, Luca Maestri
`
`– including affixing a company seal. Financial assurance filings 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.
`
`29. Chemical Injuries in 2020: In February 2020, Plaintiff moved into a new apartment at
`
`the Santa Clara Square Apartments (adjacent to 3250 Scott) and quickly became severely ill with
`
`severe fainting spells, dizziness, chest pain, palpitations, stomach aches, exhaustion, fatigue, and
`
`strange sensations in her muscles and skin. The plaintiff also suffered bradycardia, volatile blood
`
`pressure with hypertension and hypotension, and a high frequency of premature ventricular
`
`contractions. Due to the solvent exposure, Plaintiff also suffered skin rashes, burns, and hives, and
`
`her hair fell out and she had a shaved head for a year as the bald patches slowly grew back.
`
`30. Plaintiff visited the emergency room on February 13 2020, and Urgent Care (at Apple’s
`
`for-profit clinic) on February 20 2020. Plaintiff then consulted with dozens of doctors who
`
`screened her for all sorts of diseases, subjecting Plaintiff to extensive blood draws, urine samples,
`
`injections, and scans – including potentially dangerous procedures like MRI and CT scans with
`
`contrast. From February - September 2020, Plaintiff was screened for multiple severe and fatal
`
`diseases and disorders, including M.S., brain tumors, deadly arrhythmias, and NMO. The plaintiff
`
`was too sick to work and went on disability.
`
`31. Plaintiff 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. Instead,
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 9 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`she suggested Plaintiff was suffering from anxiety and enrolled Plaintiff in an Apple internal study
`
`related to blood pressure, requiring Plaintiff to share her iPhone medical and fitness data and
`
`participate in weekly life coaching sessions (while being exposed to Apple’s solvent vapor and gas
`
`exhaust).
`
`32. While sick in 2020, Plaintiff 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 September 2 2020, Plaintiff discovered elevated levels of
`
`volatile organic compounds in her home. What immediately captured Plaintiff’s attention was the
`
`significant spike in volatile organic compounds that had occurred the night prior, around 3 AM,
`
`while she had been suffering from a “dying” spell.
`
`33. Plaintiff sought out occupational and environmental exposure doctors, who told Plaintiff
`
`that all her symptoms were consistent with solvent and other chemical exposure. The plaintiff
`
`quickly filed complaints with the Santa Clara Fire Department, U.S. EPA California EPA. She also
`
`called Poison Control, who said what she described sounded like Benzene exposure. Before moving
`
`out Plaintiff also gathered extensive video, photo, medical monitoring, and air monitoring data –
`
`which supports the claims in this lawsuit.
`
`34. All the reported toxic gas leaks during the time frames Plaintiff her symptoms in 2020
`
`were the worst around 8-9 AM, 10-11 PM, and sometimes around 2-3 AM. One of the few chemical
`
`spills that did not occur during those times was caused by an Apple engineer accidentally turning
`
`on lethal fluorine gas. Another incident was root caused to an Apple engineer accidentally installing
`
`the gas for a tool “backwards.” In the two weeks following the April 2021 phosphine leak, Apple’s
`
`manifests included sixty pounds of “vacuum filters contaminated with glass dust” implying there may
`
`have been a phosphine explosion. The TEOS leak occurred on July 17 2020. That day Plaintiff was
`
`covered in hives, rashes, and skin abnormalities. She visited a dermatologist who had no idea what
`
`caused the rash.
`
`35. In September 2020, Plaintiff hired an industrial hygienist to evaluate the indoor air at her
`
`apartment. She ordered an inspection, soil testing, and a two-hour sorbent tube-based TO-17 air
`
`panel. Plaintiff’s testing returned results showing several of the chemicals in use by Apple at 3250
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 10 of 78
`
`
`
`Scott including acetone, acetonitrile, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, ethanol,
`
`ethylbenzene, hexane, isopropanol, isopropyl toluene, methylene chloride, toluene, and xylene.
`
`36. In September 2020, Plaintiff set up more air monitors to observe the levels of volatile
`
`organic compounds in her apartment next to the 3250 Scott factory (though she was not aware of
`
`the factory exhaust at that time). The results of the data confirmed what Plaintiff had noticed with
`
`her symptoms and ad hoc testing – that the volatile organic compounds mostly spiked early in the
`
`morning and late at night as if they were being exhausted from an automated mechanical system
`
`(which it was). The plaintiff notified several Apple executives of her findings and activities,
`
`including her managers Powers and West, and her Apple coworkers, Josh and Aidria.
`
`37. In September 2020, Plaintiff’s blood and urine test results showed industrial chemicals,
`
`including arsenic, mercury, toluene, and xylenes. Also noteworthy are the symptoms of Plaintiff’s
`
`3 AM attacks, (including both subjective reporting and physical real-time heart monitoring) match
`
`phosphine and arsine gas exposure.6
`
`38. Phosphine and arsine are extremely dangerous, exposure can be fatal, and there are no
`
`antidotes. Apple has a significant quantity of arsine gas onsite, and Plaintiff’s medical tests from
`
`September 2020, on the morning after a 3 AM attack, revealed significant arsenic in her blood with
`
`no other explanation than arsine gas exposure within the prior 8 hours.
`
`39. In September 2020, Plaintiff noticed an Apple facility at 3250 Scott across the street,
`
`which was on the same Superfund groundwater plume as her apartment. The plaintiff mentioned
`
`the facility to Apple in September 2020, inquiring if anyone was familiar with the area because
`
`Apple had an office there. Apple EH&S (Elizabeth) and Plaintiff had at least two phone calls. The
`
`woman who responded oversaw EH&S teams involved in 825 Stewart Drive and the activities at
`
`3250 Scott. In September 2020, Elizabeth suggested that Plaintiff use a special paid leave to move
`
`out of the apartment called ‘extreme condition leave’ designated for disasters. Later, in September
`
`2021, Apple Employee Relations, Waibel, conferred with Elizabeth about Plaintiff’s environmental
`
`concerns only hours before Plaintiff was abruptly fired.
`
`
`6 US CDC, NIOSH, Arsine Emergency Response.
`
`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
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 11 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`40. In October 2020, Plaintiff asked her manager from Apple Legal, Joyce, if she knew
`
`anyone who practiced environmental law because Plaintiff may be interested in the field and wanted
`
`to learn more. The plaintiff was introduced to Deborah, Apple’s EH&S counsel. Deboarh met with
`
`Plaintiff twice on a video chat, in November 2020. The plaintiff spoke about her experience in
`
`2020.
`
`41. During the conversation the lawyer admitted to Plaintiff that Apple did not have EH&S
`
`counsel before her, that she was still catching up, that Apple needed to be doing inspections and
`
`testing that it had not done, and that she was trying to get them to start soon. Deborah was Apple’s
`
`legal representative with the EPA for the August 2021 inspection of Plaintiff’s Superfund office.
`
`Deborah was and is also in charge of EH&S legal matters for 3250 Scott.
`
`42. On February 21, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered the semiconductor fabrication activities
`
`at 3250 Scott. She shared the discovery on Twitter that day, expressing severe distress about Apple
`
`engaging in potentially lethal and ultrahazardous activities directly next to apartments. The
`
`plaintiff’s posts also complained explicitly about the presumed toxic exhaust Apple would release
`
`from the roof of 3250 Scott and into the windows of her apartment. Until that day, Plaintiff did not
`
`know it was Apple who was responsible for making her so ill in 2020 and did not know these
`
`chemicals were potentially lethal to human life.
`
`43. Plaintiff undertook months of research about 3250 Scott, consulting with more experts,
`
`meeting with government agencies, requesting more public records, and drafting a formal
`
`complaint. On June 23 2023, Plaintiff filed complaints about 3250 Scott to the EPA, CalEPA, the
`
`city of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County.
`
`44. U.S. EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance div. for Hazardous Waste and Chemicals
`
`assigned an inspector and a formal investigation was opened around July 12 2023. 7 Plaintiff met
`
`with the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement and Compliance team
`
`several times before they inspected Apple’s factory in August 2023 and January 2024.
`
`45. Per the formal report, the EPA inspectors identified at least 19 unique violations of the
`
`
`7 US Environmental Protection Agency, ECHO, 3250 Scott Blvd # 110001168254.
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 12 of 78
`
`
`
`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
`
`civil and criminal provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at 3250 Scott. Apple
`
`was found to be illegally treating, storing, disposing, and transporting hazardous waste without
`
`permits, manifests, or other required documentation.
`
`46. EPA found Apple was emitting exhaust from its fabrication activities through a system
`
`that did not have required permits and did not have any monitoring. The EPA also found Apple did
`
`not inspect the waste on weekends, instead hoping for the best until they returned on Mondays.
`
`The enforcement action(s) is still underway.
`
`47. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the BAAQMD in July of 2024, which resulted in at
`
`least six violation notices thus far; including failure to obtain “Authority to Construct,”8 failure to
`
`obtain a “Permit to Operate,”9 and for exceeding the “Final Emission Limits” for nitric oxide (NO),
`
`nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions.10 This confirmed that Apple was
`
`operating 3250 Scott without required permits and also illegally exhausting toxic chemicals.
`
`48. 825 Stewart Drive: Plaintiff’s Apple office at the time of her termination was located at
`
`825 Stewart Drive in Sunnyvale, California, also known as the “TRW Microwave” Superfund site,
`
`part of the EPA Triple Site (three adjacent Superfund sites in Sunnyvale, forming a mile-long
`
`groundwater solvent mega-plume).
`
`49. The “TRW Microwave” Superfund site is a former industrial semiconductor
`
`manufacturing facility at 825 Stewart Drive The primary contaminants in the groundwater plume
`
`are chlorinated volatile organic compounds, including the carcinogen trichloroethylene and its
`
`daughter products cis-1,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride. The contaminated groundwater
`
`under 825 Stewart Drive is as shallow as only 2.6 feet below the ground surface, with shallow
`
`trichloroethylene concentrations up to 1,400 μg/L and vinyl chloride up to 51 μg/L.11
`
`50. Northrop Grumman,
`
`the primary Potentially Responsible Party under
`
`the
`
`Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, conducted an initial
`
`vapor intrusion evaluation at 825 Stewart Drive in 2003 and 2004. The assessment indicated that
`
`
`8 Rule 2-1-301: August 29 and September 12, 2024.
`9 Rule 2-1-30: August 29 and September 12, 2024.
`10 Rule 9-7-307: September 12, 2024.
`11 AECOM for Northrop Grumman, 2021 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (3/17/2022).
`
`F I F T H A M E N D E D C O M PL A I N T | Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC | P A GE 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 142 Filed 11/26/24 Page 13 of 78
`
`
`
`trichloroethylene concentrations in indoor air present an inhalation risk exceeding acceptable
`
`health and safety levels, with results at 5.1 μg/m3 and 5.2 μg/m3, respectively.12
`
`51. Indoor air pollution due to vapor intrusion worsened over time, and indoor air
`
`concentrations increased to 7.7 μg/m3 in 2013, the accelerated action level for trichloroethylene in
`
`commercial buildings. In 2024, the EPA proposed a full ban on trichloroethylene as a whole
`
`substance in the U.S., prohibiting it under the TSCA as an unreasonable danger to human health.
`
`52. In May 2015, Northrop Grumman installed a sub-slab ventilation system inside the
`
`building. (The slab refers to the concrete foundation, and the sub-slab is under the slab.) Northrop
`
`Grumman installed horizontal collection pipes beneath the slab foundation, which allows vapors to
`
`move laterally. It connected the collection pipes to vertical v