Core Insights - The lawsuit filed by former finance chief Michelle Ressler against Real Brokerage alleges discrimination based on gender and pregnancy, claiming she was fired to make way for a less qualified male successor [7] - Ressler's complaint includes claims for back pay, future lost wages, and benefits, asserting violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act [3][7] - The case is currently in mediation, with a private session scheduled for October 30, 2023, following a request for more time to resolve the issues [7] Company Background - Michelle Ressler, a 40-year-old Black woman and first-time mother, was employed in the financial services and real estate technology sectors, which are noted for being male-dominated [4] - Ressler disclosed her pregnancy in January 2024 and was terminated in April 2025, approximately three months after returning from maternity leave [5] Allegations and Claims - The lawsuit claims that Ressler was fired for "pretextual" reasons related to alleged improper charges on a company card, which she contends were either business-related or an oversight she was willing to rectify [5] - Ressler raised concerns about financial compliance and risk management within the company, which she alleges led to retaliation against her [6]

Group 1 - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against iPro Dental Laboratories for allegedly terminating an employee due to her pregnancy, which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act [3][7] - The lawsuit claims that the employee was fired three days after disclosing her pregnancy, following a doctor's appointment, and that the company's financial status had not changed during her brief employment [7] - The general manager's inquiry about the employee's pregnancy and the subsequent termination raises questions about the employer's motives, particularly given the close timing of the events [4][5] Group 2 - The EEOC's enforcement guidance allows plaintiffs to demonstrate discrimination through "temporal proximity," which refers to the timing between the employer learning of the pregnancy and the adverse action taken [4] - Previous court cases have established that a short time frame between pregnancy disclosure and termination can suggest discrimination, with examples showing that even a two-month gap can be considered close enough [5][6] - In contrast, a ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that a four-month gap was too long to establish a connection between an employee's opposition to a promotion and her termination [6]