SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — Apple filed a motion for summary judgment Thursday seeking to dismiss all four remaining retaliation and wrongful-termination claims brought by former employee Ashley Gjovik, arguing that she was fired not for whistleblowing but for leaking confidential images from an internal Face ID development tool to The Verge.
The cross-motions for summary judgment are set for hearing June 11 before U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen, who has previously described the case as, in essence, a retaliation case.
Apple's central argument is that on August 30, 2021, Gjovik posted screenshots of locally captured data from an internal Face ID study on Twitter, and that same day The Verge published an article containing a video of images stored on her Apple-provided iPhone that she had leaked. According to Apple's motion, Vice President Yannick Bertolus reviewed the images, concluded the conduct was egregious, and terminated her employment on September 9, 2021. Apple contends the leak of confidential images and data from an internal tool called Glimmer — used in the development of Face ID — was alone sufficient grounds for termination.
Gjovik, for her part, contends she was fired in retaliation for a series of protected complaints she had raised over months, including concerns about vapor intrusion from floor cracks in her office building, Apple's return-to-office expectations, and interactions with her managers. Apple counters that the decisionmaker, Bertolus, was unaware of those complaints and that Gjovik cannot produce admissible evidence linking them to her termination.
Apple also argues that Gjovik's termination letter cited two additional grounds beyond the leak itself: her refusal to participate in live investigative interviews — insisting instead on written-only communication — and what Apple characterized as efforts to mislead personnel investigating her complaints. Apple says it has terminated over a dozen other employees for similarly disclosing confidential product research and development information, pointing to that record as evidence of consistent enforcement rather than pretext.
On the causation question, Apple argues that temporal proximity between Gjovik's complaints and her firing cannot, standing alone, carry her burden stage under either the McDonnell Douglas framework governing three of her four claims or the distinct California Labor Code Section 1102.5 framework governing the fourth. Under Section 1102.5, Apple argues it has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the termination would have occurred regardless of any protected activity — what California courts call the same-decision defense.
Apple also moves to exclude much of Gjovik's evidentiary submission, arguing she filed 651 pages of declarations and exhibits — including complete, unhighlighted deposition transcripts — in violation of the court's instructions, and that her motion cites deposition page numbers that do not exist in the certified transcripts, with references running into four-digit page numbers for depositions that top out at 188 pages.
Gjovik's motion argues that Apple's stated reason for the termination must be pretextual given the volume of her protected activity, and separately contends that California law permitted her to disclose the confidential product information because she did so of complaining about her employer. Apple calls that legal theory wrong, pointing to a September 25, 2025 National Labor Relations Board order dismissing Gjovik's claim that she was wrongfully terminated. According to Apple's motion, the NLRB order found that when Gjovik revealed confidential product development information about an Apple study to the media, she was not engaging in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
Gjovik also seeks reinstatement as a remedy, which Apple opposes as an extraordinary remedy she has not shown she is entitled to receive.
The June 11 hearing will be the first time Judge Chen hears live argument on the merits of the retaliation claims; no ruling has issued.