Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 1 of 523
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USDC. 3: 23 -CV- 04597 -EMC
`
`USCA.: 24 -6058; 25-2028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Notice of Pendency
`
`Civil L.R. 3 -13
`
`Apple Inc . & Ashley Gjovik,
`NLRB ALJ Case No’s.
`1. 32- CA-284428
`2. 32- CA-282142 /32-CA- 283161
`
`Ashley Gjovik v Apple Inc,
`ARB Case No. 2024 - 0060,
`OALJ Case No. 2024 -CER-00001
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, an individual ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., a corporation ,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 2 of 523
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Notice of Pendency ............................................................................... 1
`
`Procedural History of the NLRB Action ................................................................. 1
`
`Summary of Settlement Terms .............................................................................. 3
`
`Substantive Overlap with Plaintiff’s Claims ............................................................ 4
`
`Apple’s Post-Settlement Misconduct & Retaliatory Positions .................................... 5
`
`Mootness Of Plaintiff’s Prior Request for Judicial Notice ......................................... 6
`
`Inevitable U.S. District Court Involvement ............................................................. 8
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Pending U.S. Adjudications ............................................................................. 10
`
`Open & Pending Agency Env. Actions ............................................................11
`
`Appendix: Exhibits ............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 3 of 523
`
`N O T I C E OF P E N D E N C Y
`
`Plaintiff Ashley M. Gjovik respectfully submits this Notice of Pendency pursuant to Civil
`
`Local Rule 3-13(a) to inform the Court of a finalized federal administrative enforcement action
`
`between the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Defendant Apple Inc. The action
`
`culminated in an approved settlement on April 4, 2025, in Case No. 32-CA-284428. The
`
`resolution of that case, and Apple’s subsequent compliance obligations, bear directly on
`
`Plaintiff’s claims and Apple’s defenses in this matter.
`
`This is Plaintiff’s fourth formal Notice of Pendency. Previous notices—concerning
`
`proceedings before the U.S. Department of Labor (Dkt. 100) and earlier stages of this NLRB
`
`matter (Dkts. 111 and 151)—were filed without objection from Apple. This filing serves to clarify
`
`the procedural status of that related matter and to formally place the settlement—including the
`
`April 2025 compliance obligations and confirmed revisions to Apple’s internal policies—on the
`
`record in this case, as required under Civil Local Rule 3-13(b)(2).
`
`Procedural History of the NLRB Action
`
`The related administrative proceeding, NLRB v. Apple Inc., Case No. 32-CA-284428,
`
`began with a charge Plaintiff filed in October 2021 concerning Apple’s unlawful employment
`
`policies, confidentiality agreements, and retaliation in violation of the National Labor Relations
`
`Act (NLRA). The representative for Apple Inc as the Respondent in the NLRB proceeding is Tim
`
`Cook, Chief Executive Officer. Apple is currently represented by Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius.
`
`After a formal evidentiary investigation, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a Complaint
`
`against Apple in September 2024. A hearing was scheduled for January 2025 before an
`
`administrative law judge. The ALJ hearing was scheduled pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. and
`
`29 C.F.R. § 102.15. Congress prescribed the hearing to be formal adjudication governed by 5
`
`U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557. That hearing was then indefinitely postponed by the agency on
`
`December 31, 2024, pending a possible global settlement. See Dkt. 194, Ex. A.
`
`The now settled NLRB Case No. 32-CA-284428 challenged many of the same policies
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 4 of 523
`
`that Gjovik has concurrently challenged under California Labor Code §§ 96(k), 98.7, 232, 232.5,
`
`6310, 6377, 1101- 1102, and 1102.5 in this lawsuit. Further, NLRB Case No.’s 282142 & 283161
`
`challenge many of the same questions of fact, and related questions of law, that Gjovik has
`
`concurrently challenged under the same California Labor Codes as well the Termination in
`
`Violation of Public Policy Tamney claim in this lawsuit, and is also directly impacted by the
`
`settlement in Case No. 32-CA-284428.
`
`On March 25, 2025, Apple signed a Settlement Agreement with the NLRB’s Regional
`
`Director. The settlement was approved on April 4, 2025, and entered into the agency’s
`
`compliance docket. The agreement requires Apple to take several affirmative actions including
`
`rescinding certain policies, posting a Notice to Employees, providing disclosures to Plaintiff as
`
`the Charging Party, and certifying compliance to the agency. See Exhibits A-C (Settlement and
`
`Compliance Materials).
`
`Although Apple signed the settlement nearly three weeks before filing its March 28, 2025
`
`Answer (Dkt. 183), the company made no reference to the settlement, its obligations, or its
`
`impact on the employment policies directly at issue in this litigation. Apple instead stated that
`
`“no hearing is presently scheduled” and that the charge does not have any preclusive effect,
`
`omitting all mention of the pending agreement. See Dkt. 183 ¶ 8
`
`On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Notice and accompanying Notice
`
`of Pendency (Dkt. 194) to place the now-signed settlement on the record. Apple responded by
`
`filing an Opposition (Dkt. 201), in which it accused Plaintiff of misusing judicial notice, citing
`
`fictitious case law, and violating Rule 11, merely for referencing the public settlement agreement
`
`and its relevance.
`
`On April 14, 2025, the NLRB transmitted to Plaintiff, Apple’s counsel, and the agency
`
`record the full set of compliance documents, including the final signed Notice to Employees, a
`
`detailed compliance letter from the NLRB’s Compliance Officer, and the terms of the mandated
`
`policy changes. See Exhibit A-C. As of this filing, Apple’s compliance is ongoing and under
`
`active federal oversight.
`
`
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 5 of 523
`
`Summary of Settlement Terms
`
`The settlement agreement between Apple and the NLRB includes several affirmative
`
`obligations directly related to Plaintiff’s claims in this civil action. The agreement was executed
`
`on March 25, 2025, and formally approved by the Regional Director on April 4, 2025. These are
`
`not informal resolutions or discretionary policy changes. The NLRB Compliance Manual
`
`confirms that once approved, settlement agreements are binding and enforceable as adjudicative
`
`outcomes. See NLRB Compliance Manual § 10592.1 (settlements “binding and enforceable”); §
`
`10594.1 (settlement remedies must be consistent with Board orders).
`
`Apple is currently under federal compliance monitoring in NLRB Case No. 32-CA-
`
`284428. Pursuant to the agreement, Apple is required to:
`
`• Rescind and revise unlawful policies and agreements, including specific provisions in its
`
`Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA), and related policies governing
`
`workplace speech and disclosure of workplace concerns;
`
`• Post an official NLRB Notice to Employees on its People intranet and on a public-facing
`
`website for a minimum of 60 consecutive days, acknowledging violations and advising
`
`employees of their rights under the NLRA;
`
`• Provide a revised explanation of policy changes affecting confidentiality, nondisclosure,
`
`and protected activity—linked publicly and communicated to the Charging Party
`
`(Plaintiff) directly;
`
`• Certify compliance with posting, notification, and publication requirements to the NLRB
`
`by April 28, 2025, including submission of screenshots, document evidence, and sworn
`
`attestations;
`
`• Notify Plaintiff—as the Charging Party—of its compliance and revised policies.
`
`The Notice to Employees includes an explicit acknowledgment that Apple maintained
`
`and enforced policies that unlawfully restricted employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.
`
`(See Exhibit A). These policies, which the NLRB deemed unlawful, are substantially similar to
`
`the provisions Apple continues to defend in this litigation, including the same confidentiality
`
`clauses cited as grounds for Plaintiff’s termination and related claims under Labor Code §§
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 6 of 523
`
`1102.5, 232, and 232.5.
`
`The full set of materials—including the signed settlement, the official Notice to
`
`Employees, the compliance instructions from the agency, and Apple’s ongoing obligations—are
`
`attached hereto.
`
`Substantive Overlap with Plaintiff’s Claims
`
`The NLRB settlement directly implicates several core issues raised in this litigation,
`
`particularly with respect to Apple’s employment policies, internal agreements, and treatment of
`
`protected disclosures. While the administrative agreement does not resolve any of Plaintiff’s
`
`claims under state or common law, it confirms that Apple was required to revise and withdraw
`
`policies that formed part of the basis for Plaintiff’s allegations.
`
`The agreement’s policy rescissions and public notice requirements—mandated under
`
`agency oversight—confirm that Apple’s prior confidentiality terms unlawfully restricted
`
`employee rights. This is not merely regulatory compliance; it is federal recognition that the terms
`
`now being defended in this Court required formal withdrawal. See NLRB Compliance Manual §
`
`10518.4 (notice posting “essential remedy”). See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (judicial notice
`
`permitted where record is “from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”).
`
`The policies Apple rescinded or modified under the NLRB settlement include provisions
`
`in its Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA)—a document that Plaintiff was
`
`subject to as a condition of her employment, and which Apple has relied on in this case to justify
`
`its discipline and termination decisions.
`
`The settlement acknowledges that Apple’s policies unlawfully restricted employee
`
`speech and disclosures, including topics central to Plaintiff’s claims under California Labor Code
`
`§§ 1102.5, 232, and 232.5. These statutes protect whistleblowing and employee rights to discuss
`
`workplace conditions—precisely the rights the NLRB settlement required Apple to affirm and
`
`reinforce through public notices and policy changes.
`
`The Notice to Employees, signed by Apple and distributed as part of its federal
`
`compliance obligations, affirms that the company will not threaten or discipline employees for
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 7 of 523
`
`engaging in protected concerted activity or for raising concerns about workplace practices. These
`
`statements have direct bearing on Apple’s defenses in this litigation.
`
`While the NLRB resolution does not preclude further adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in
`
`this Court—particularly under state law, tort theory, or for individual damages—it does carry
`
`legal and factual significance. The rescission of contractual language, formal public notices, and
`
`mandated disclosures to Plaintiff as Charging Party represent binding admissions of prior policy
`
`deficiencies, regardless of Apple’s continued assertion that it has done nothing wrong.
`
`In effect, Apple has acknowledged—through federal enforcement—that its employment
`
`documents required revision. That acknowledgment bears on the credibility of Apple’s defenses
`
`and the legitimacy of the contractual justifications it has raised for its adverse actions against
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`Apple’s Post-Settlement Misconduct &
`Retaliatory Positions
`Apple’s litigation posture not only ignores the legal significance of the settlement—it
`
`undermines the agency’s authority to ensure compliance. The NLRB’s procedures anticipate
`
`that courts may be called to enforce settlement orders where Respondents fail to comply. See 29
`
`C.F.R. § 101.14 (compliance disputes referred to U.S. District Court for enforcement).
`
`When Plaintiff first referenced the existence of the finalized NLRB settlement in her
`
`March 28, 2025 Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 194), Apple did not merely oppose the
`
`request—it responded by filing a brief accusing Plaintiff of Rule 11 violations, asserting that
`
`referencing a binding federal administrative agreement amounted to sanctionable conduct. See
`
`Dkt. 201. Apple described Plaintiff’s motion as frivolous, hallucinatory, and improper, despite
`
`the fact that Plaintiff cited to a valid, executed settlement and attached supporting agency
`
`materials.
`
`Apple’s objection did not rest on substance—it rested on the tactical suppression of
`
`information it had already agreed to make public. As of the date of Apple’s latest filing, the
`
`company had already signed the settlement (March 25), and had already received compliance
`
`instructions from the NLRB, including an obligation to provide information directly to Plaintiff as
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 8 of 523
`
`the Charging Party. See Exhibits A-C.
`
`Even after receiving formal compliance directives from the NLRB on April 14, 2025,
`
`Apple has continued to assert in court filings that the settlement is immaterial, that its terms are
`
`not relevant to this litigation, and that it has no bearing on Apple’s defenses. This position is
`
`unsustainable given that:
`
`⎯ Apple has already begun executing the required compliance steps, including preparing
`
`posting and certification materials;
`
`⎯ Apple has acknowledged, through its own counsel and under federal oversight, that its
`
`prior policies required revision;
`
`⎯ Apple’s attempts to deny Plaintiff access to the settlement materials have now been
`
`overtaken by the NLRB’s own disclosures.
`
`Further, Plaintiff has included updates, status, and exhibits of this exact NLRB
`
`proceeding in two prior Notices of Pendency – and until now Apple had not objected or even
`
`commented about it. One after Apple entered a long-term, global settlement with the U.S.
`
`government does Appel now object.
`
`Apple’s conduct—both in attempting to withhold the agreement and in now minimizing
`
`its relevance—suggests a troubling pattern of procedural retaliation: punishing Plaintiff for
`
`raising legally significant information, and attempting to isolate this litigation from binding events
`
`in a closely connected federal enforcement action.
`
`This is not the behavior of a party treating judicial and administrative orders with respect.
`
`It is the behavior of a party trying to litigate in sealed compartments—disclosing to regulators
`
`what it denies to courts, and penalizing disclosure at every turn.
`
`
`
`Mootness Of Plaintiff’s Prior Request for
`Judicial Notice
`Plaintiff previously filed a Request for Judicial Notice and accompanying Notice of
`
`Pendency on March 28, 2025 (Dkt. 194), seeking to place the then-recently executed NLRB
`
`settlement on the record. That filing included citations to publicly available agency documents, a
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 9 of 523
`
`procedural timeline, and a discussion of the settlement’s relevance to Apple’s policies and
`
`defenses.
`
`Apple responded not merely by opposing the request, but by filing a 12-page brief alleging
`
`that Plaintiff had committed multiple violations of Rule 11—including citing "nonexistent cases,"
`
`“fabricated claims,” and filing an “improper motion.” See Dkt. 201. Apple argued that
`
`Plaintiff’s attempt to bring the NLRB resolution before the Court was “immaterial,”
`
`“irrelevant,” and procedurally improper. As of the date of this filing, those arguments are no
`
`longer tenable.
`
`On April 14, 2025, the NLRB issued formal compliance correspondence and transmitted
`
`the full set of documents necessary to evaluate the agreement’s scope and execution. These
`
`documents—now attached to this filing as Exhibit A-C—include:
`
`• The conformed copy of the executed settlement agreement;
`
`• The triplicate Notice to Employees, signed and dated;
`
`• The letter from the NLRB Compliance Officer outlining Apple’s specific obligations and
`
`deadlines;
`
`• The instructions regarding public posting, employee notice, intranet access, and policy
`
`disclosures;
`
`• The certification requirements, which Apple must complete by April 28, 2025;
`
`• And the required disclosure to Plaintiff, who remains a party to the NLRB charge.
`
`Given these developments, Plaintiff’s March 28, 2025 request for production of
`
`documents is now procedurally moot. The Court need not rule on the pending RJN (Dkt. 194),
`
`regarding the production, as this Notice of Pendency places the final, authenticated, agency-
`
`issued compliance package on the record as a matter of related proceeding notice under Civil
`
`L.R. 3-13.
`
`What remains relevant, however, is the Court’s awareness that Apple intentionally
`
`concealed this settlement from their Answer, and then when caught, subsequently sought to cast
`
`a valid reference to a binding federal enforcement outcome as frivolous litigation conduct. That
`
`position was not supported by law, and it is no longer supported by fact.
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 10 of 523
`
`The materials submitted here are not hearsay, speculation, or unsupported claims. They
`
`are final government documents, served on both parties, and subject to judicial notice as official
`
`agency records. See FRE 201(b)(2); See also Compliance Manual § 10594.12 (noncompliance may
`
`trigger new violation and further enforcement).
`
`Inevitable U.S. District Court Involvement
`
`If the NLRB must seek court assistance to enforce Orders, the agency must petition a U.S.
`
`District Court, per 29 C.F.R. § 101.14. Appeals of NLRB agency decisions are directed to a Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals. In this case, appeals would go to the Ninth Circuit, and enforcement challenges
`
`are most likely to be filed in a California U.S. District Court. The NLRB Compliance Manual
`
`confirms that approved settlements are binding and enforceable administrative outcomes. See
`
`NLRB Compliance Manual § 10592.1. They are not discretionary promises, but adjudicative
`
`resolutions that the agency may enforce in federal court. See also 29 C.F.R. § 101.14. This Court
`
`may take judicial notice of the accompanying compliance documents under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`201(b)(2).
`
`It is incongruous for Apple to seek to exclude the global settlement—affecting terms of
`
`employment directly at issue—when the NLRB itself could petition this Court to enforce the
`
`same. If the NLRB must seek enforcement of the agreement, they must do so in a U.S. District
`
`Court near where Apple is located – thus the Northern District Court of California courthouses
`
`in either San Jose or San Francisco (this courthouse). Similarly, an appeal of injunctions or
`
`decisions in any of the four proceedings underway with NLRB against Defendant, initiated by
`
`charges filed by the Plaintiff, would also be brough to a U.S. District Court, likely this one.
`
`Conclusion
`
`This Notice of Pendency is submitted pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-13 to inform the
`
`Court of a finalized and federally enforceable settlement between Defendant Apple Inc. and the
`
`National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 32-CA-284428. That agreement—executed on
`
`March 25, 2025, and formally approved on April 4, 2025—requires Apple to revise policies,
`
`notify employees of their rights, and disclose compliance materials to Plaintiff as Charging Party.
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 11 of 523
`
`This supplementary Notice of Pendency now
`
`includes the finalized settlement
`
`agreement, compliance materials, and a copy of the notice posting (Exhibits A-C), as well as the
`
`Plaintiff’s filing to the NLRB on the matter (Exhibits D-E), and news coverage of the settlement
`
`to provide context as to the importance and the public interest (Exhibit E).
`
`The relevance of that settlement to this litigation is clear. Several of the same policies and
`
`contractual terms at issue in this case have now been rescinded, revised, or publicly disclaimed by
`
`Apple under federal oversight. The Notice to Employees, the required disclosures, and the
`
`compliance procedures all intersect directly with claims raised in this matter under California
`
`Labor Code §§ 1102.5, 232, 232.5, and related doctrines.
`
`At the same time, Plaintiff does not contend that the NLRB agreement resolves all issues
`
`before this Court. Plaintiff’s state law and common law claims remain live, and the full extent of
`
`Apple’s liability under those provisions remains to be adjudicated. But to the extent Apple
`
`continues to assert that the challenged policies were lawful, or that Plaintiff’s objections were
`
`unfounded, the terms of this federal enforcement action call those defenses into serious question.
`
`This Notice ensures that the Court has access to the materials Apple declined to provide,
`
`and that the record reflects the scope and legal significance of a settlement “...Apple executed
`
`but did not acknowledge in its responsive pleadings. No action is requested at this time, but
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to reference this matter in future filings or proceedings as necessary to
`
`correct the record, rebut misrepresentations, or support pending claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
`
`Pro Se Plaintiff 1 | Dated: April 15 2025
`
`
`1 I disclose the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence technology in drafting this filing,
`specifically assistance with drafting, revising, and organizing provided by ChatGPT. I am unable
`to complete all of the required work in drafting all of the filings in this litigation myself and
`submit on time, so I offload some work where I can, to tools available to me.
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 12 of 523
`
`Pending U.S. Adjudications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Agency
`
`U.S. NLRB,
`
`Div. of Judges
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 111, 151, 194
`
`U.S. NLRB,
`
`Div. of Judges
`
`
`Dkt. No. 111, 151, 194
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. NLRB,
`
`Regional Director
`
`
`
`Dkt No. 111, 151, 194
`
`U.S. Dept. of Labor,
`Office of ALJs
`
`Dkt No. 111, 151, 194
`
`U.S. Dept. of Labor,
`Admin. Review Board
`
`Dkt. No. 111, 151, 194
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Name & No.
`
`Status &
`
`Public Docket
`
`
`
`Apple Inc & Ashley Gjovik, 32-
`CA-32-CA-282142 & 283161
`(NLRA unfair labor practices)
`
`Charge filed: Aug. 26 2021;
`Complaint filed Dec. 18 2024.
`ALJ Hearing: Aug. 4 2025.
`nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-282142
`
`Apple Inc & Ashley Gjovik,
`32-CA-284428
`(NLRA unfair labor practices)
`
`Apple Inc & Ashley Gjovik,
`32-CA-284441
`(NLRA unfair labor practices)
`
`Charge filed: Oct. 12 2021.
`Complaint filed Sept. 27 2024.
`ALJ Hearing on Jan. 22 2025
`cancelled due
`to settlement
`discussions.
`nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284428
`
`filed Oct. 12 2021;
`Charge
`Decision of Merit in Jan. 2023;
`complaint to be issued:
`nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-284441
`
`Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc,
`OALJ Case No. 2024-CER-
`00001 (The CERCLA: 42
`U.S.C. § 9610)
`
`Charged filed: Aug. 29 2021.
`Trial case docketed Dec. 19 2024
`(de novo); Appeal filed to ARB on
`Aug. 21 2024.
`
`
`
`Ashley Gjovik v. Apple Inc,
`ARB Case No. 2024-0060
`(The CERCLA; RCRA;
`CAA; & TSCA)
`
`filed Aug. 21 2024;
`Appeal
`Briefing complete on Nov. 6
`2024; Awaiting decision.
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 1 0
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 13 of 523
`
`Open & Pending Agency Env. Actions
`
`
`
`Agency
`
`U.S. EPA, RCRA Enf.
`& Compliance Div.
`
`
`Dkt. No. 111, 151, 194
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cal. Bay Area Air
`Dist., cal. Air
`Resources board,
`Enforcement.
`
`
` Dkt. No. 111, 151, 194
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Name & No.
`
`Violations
`
`3250 Scott Blvd., Satna Clara
`EPA ID CAR000278176.
`
`Complaint filed to U.S. EPA in
`Sept. 2020 and revised with
`information on 3250 Scott
`Blvd in June 2024.
`
`Insp. Dates: Aug. 17-18 2023,
`& Jan. 16 2024.
`
`- 40 CFR Part 262 §§ 262.A &
`262.B
`(hazardous
`waste
`generation)
`
`- 40 CFR Part 265 §§ 265.J,
`265.BB, 265.CC (hazardous
`waste storage & air emission)
`
`- 40 CFR Part 270 § 270.A (no
`permits)
`
`3250 Scott Blvd., Satna Clara
`CARB Facility ID: 22839.
`
`Complaint No. CPM448152.
`
`Insp. Dates: Aug. 29 2024 &
`Sept. 12 2024.
`
`- No. 64215: Reg. 2, Rule 1, §§
`301 & 302 (no permits)
`
`- No. 64216: Reg. 2, Rule 1, §§
`301 & 302 (no permits)
`
`- No. 64218 & 64219: Reg. 9,
`Rule 7, § 307.1 (exceeding
`nitrogen oxide exhaust limits)
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 1 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 14 of 523
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appendix: Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`
`Details
`
`Exhibit A
`
`NLRB Notice for Case No. 32 -CA-284428
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Exhibit C
`
`Exhibit D
`
`Exhibit E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finalized Case No. 32-CA-284428 settlement agreement
`dated April 4 2025
`
`Case No. 32 -CA-284428 c ompliance instructions & guidance
`dated April 14 2025
`
`Charging Party/Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Joinder with
`Reservations in Case No. 32 -CA-284428 dated April 3 2025
`
`Charging Party/Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Concerns of Non
`Compliance in case Case No. 32 -CA-284428 dated April 14
`2025
`
`
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 1 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 15 of 523
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`NLRB Notice for Case No. 32-CA-284428
`
`
`
`P l a in t i ff ’ s N ot i ce o f P e n de n cy . | C a s e 3 :2 3 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C | P a g e 1 3
`
`

`

`
`
` FORM NLRB-4722
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 16 of 523
`32-CA-284428
`
`
`
`NOTICE TO
`EMPLOYEES
`
`
`
` POSTED PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`APPROVED BY A REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
`NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`
`AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
`
`
`
`
`THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO:
`
`• Form, join, or assist a union;
`• Choose a representative to bargain with us on your behalf;
`• Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection;
`• Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
`
`WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the above rights.
`
`YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to discuss wages, hours and working conditions and WE WILL NOT do
`anything to interfere with your exercise of that right.
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce any rule that defines confidential information as
`“anything not explicitly, publicly, or purposefully disclosed by Apple.”
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Agreement,
`Business Conduct Policy, Misconduct and Discipline Policy, Social Media and Online Communications
`Policy, Confidentiality Obligations Upon Termination of Employment statement, or a Business Conduct
`and Global Compliance FAQ regarding confidential information that broadly defines “confidential” or
`“proprietary” information, or relies upon any other overly broad definitions of those terms, without
`contemporaneously notifying employees of their rights to discuss wages, hours, or working conditions and
`their rights to engage in union or other protected, concerted activity under the NLRA.
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a Business Conduct Policy that broadly restricts public
`speaking, responses to press inquiries and publishing articles without contemporaneously notifying
`employees of their rights to speak publicly, respond to press inquiries and publish articles regarding their
`wages, hours, or working conditions, or their union or other protected, concerted activity under the NLRA.
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a Business Conduct Policy that broadly restricts
`“conflicts of interest” or “outside activities,” without contemporaneously notifying employees that such
`policies do not restrict their right to form, join or assist a union, or engage in other protected, concerted
`activity and that these activities are not considered to be conflicts of interest or outside activities under such
`policy.
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a Business Conduct Policy that broadly prohibits
`sharing of employee personal identifying information if such policy could be interpreted as prohibiting the
`sharing of personal contact information, employment history, compensation or other terms and conditions
`of employment.
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a Workplace Searches and Privacy Policy that advises
`you that we have the right to access Apple’s network or systems, or any non-Apple device used to conduct
`Apple business, without contemporaneously advising you that we will not exercise our right of access to
`monitor your union or other protected, concerted activity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. We conduct secret-ballot
`elections to determine whether employees want union representation and we investigate and remedy unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find
`out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional
`Office set forth below or you may call the Board's toll-free number 1-844-762-NLRB (1-844-762-6572). Hearing impaired callers who wish to speak to an
`Agency representative should contact the Federal Relay Service (link is external) by visiting its website at https://www.federalrelay.us/tty (link is external),
`calling one of its toll free numbers and asking its Communications Assistant to call our toll free number at 1-844-762-NLRB.
`
` THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
`THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED DEFACED OR
`COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED
` PANEL 1 OF 3
`TO,
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 203 Filed 04/15/25 Page 17 of 523
`
`
`
` FORM NLRB-4722
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 32-CA-284428
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE TO
`EMPLOYEES
`
` POSTED PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
`APPROVED BY A REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
`NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`
`AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
`
`
`
`THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO:
`
`• Form, join, or assist a union;
`• Choose a representative to bargain with your employer on your behalf;
`• Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection;
`• Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
`
`WE WILL NOT promulgate, ma