Ex-whistleblower employee files RICO lawsuit against Apple

Apple Park

An Apple whistleblower has filed a RICO Act lawsuit against the company in an attempt to force the iPhone maker to answer allegations of retaliation against a former employee.

In September 2021, Apple fired Ashley Gevick over allegations that she violated its intellectual property disclosure policy, leading to a series of lawsuits against the company. With the two-year statute of limitations for a number of potential civil lawsuits close to expiring, Gjovik filed a lawsuit against Apple to keep them in the game.

Gjovik’s work against Apple has been extensive over the past two years, including winning an unemployment insurance appeal. There was also an initial ruling on the merits of Gevick’s allegations of whistleblower retaliation under SOX, CERCLA, and the Health Care Act, the NLRB’s allegations of NDAs and Apple’s employment policies that allegedly violate federal law, and other claims against the company.

However, Gevick wrote on Saturday that “I still do not have final decisions on my allegations of retaliation against Apple, and my two-year statute of limitations on many of my potential civil claims expires tomorrow.”

The civil suit was filed on Friday because Gevick “decided that if I’m going to have to face Apple in court anyway and I’m only going to have one real chance to sue Apple for everything they’ve done to me, I’d better turn it all on — and I did.”

The RICO claim includes claims related to whistleblower retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts, which fall within the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Govik “kicked out” the Department of Labor (DOL) from the SOX charge because “I have refused to see them actually comply with their statutory obligations after their continued obstruction and recent extortion attempts.” In addition, the California DOL has transferred the case from a state agency to a civil case, as the California DOL allows such action.

The lawsuit was filed in California, despite Gevick’s base in New York, due to alleged harassment due to the inclusion of California-related claims. The claims include the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act, the California Labor Code, which prohibits firing in response to safety complaints or discussions of working conditions, and the Bain Civil Rights Act, which prohibits threats and intimidation that violate civil rights in the state.

The Ralph Civil Rights Act is also cited because it prohibits threats of violence based on protected personal characteristics or membership in protected groups. In this case, the Ralph Act applies because the protected characteristic is a “position in a labor dispute.”

Statutory Limitations, Privacy, and RICO

Hovik expressed concern about the two-year statute of limitations because it would “affect my claim for termination in violation of public policy under state law.” It claims that Apple’s justification for termination is a “gross violation of California law” because the state has a constitutional right to privacy that cannot be waived in private contract or employment.

This right to privacy extends to cases such as the right to protest “egregious violations of privacy by their employers, even if they have given prior consent,” Gövik mentions. There are also references to the California Labor Code, which prohibits employers from videotaping employees in bathrooms and locker rooms, and prohibits firing employees for off-duty behavior.

The FTC Act’s ban on “developing commercial products based on non-consensual or otherwise illegal data” is another claim, as well as asking Apple to drop products made using photos, videos and personal data of employees “provided through coercion of the employee, not actual consent’. There is also an order to prohibit Apple from “continuing its strange medical experiments and collecting the personal data of its employees.”

Govik completes the list of charges with three violations of the RICO Act.

“Obviously, if an employer discharges an employee in a manner that constitutes an indictable criminal act that falls within the enumerated list of predicate acts for RICO, it can establish a RICO case with additional relevant predicate acts,” Govik suggests.

Also included are additional RICO violations related to wire and mail fraud, Gjovik’s securities fraud claims, and state bribery and extortion claims.

The statement was filed on September 7, 2023 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint demands a jury trial.

Apple has yet to comment on the new filing at this early stage.

Check Also

League of Legends ‘owners’ want to sue US for listing them as companies linked to Chinese military

Chinese tech giant Tencent, the parent company of developers like Riot Games (behind games like …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *