Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
A former National Association of Realtors employee has updated her lawsuit with more details accusing the trade group of retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination, but NAR told a federal court in Chicago that her claims continue to be “implausible” and not viable.
On Tues. June 10, NAR and the plaintiff, Roshani Sheth, submitted a joint status report to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where NAR is based. In that filing, NAR referred to Sheth’s second amended complaint, filed last week, and said the changes weren’t enough to survive NAR’s motion to dismiss.
“In particular, each of the arguments Defendant raised in its Motion … remain viable despite Plaintiff’s attempt to cure the deficiencies, and Plaintiff’s additional allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, in part, contradict prior allegations, doom her claims, and otherwise do nothing to help her state viable claims,” attorneys for NAR wrote in the filing.
Roshani Sheth
Sheth worked as a project manager for NAR from May 2014 through October 2019 and filed suit in June 2024. She alleges NAR terminated her for reporting sexual harassment allegedly committed by Ken Burlington, who was a vice president of NAR and chief operating officer for the Realtors Information Network (RIN), a wholly-owned subsidiary that oversees NAR’s relationship with Realtor.com, and Matthew Embrescia, president of Second Generation Ltd., a company that has multiple partnerships with NAR.
In April, Judge Alexakis dismissed four out of five of Sheth’s claims — retaliation under federal and state laws, discrimination, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage — but allowed a breach of contract claim against NAR to proceed. The four claims were dismissed without prejudice, which means Sheth was allowed to re-file her complaint to address the judge’s concerns.
Those concerns centered around connecting NAR directly to the allegation that “agents” of NAR “sent [Sheth] a series of harassing text messages” that called her a “rat,” told her to “shut up,” and to “kill yourself.” Alexakis also said Sheth had not sufficiently pled facts suggesting NAR had a retaliatory motive when NAR allegedly ignored reference requests while Sheth was looking for work after NAR fired her.
Ken Burlington
Sheth submitted her second amended complaint on June 3. Her attorney describes “a period of mounting internal and external scrutiny of NAR, including growing antitrust investigations and a wave of employee and member complaints alleging retaliation, discrimination, and harassment by NAR leadership and its business collaborators, such as Matthew Embrescia.”
The complaint details Embrescia’s and Burlington’s alleged sexist and racist behavior and further elaborates on the timing of NAR allegedly neglecting to provide references and of the text messages she received. According to the complaint, the Illinois Department of Human Rights informed both Sheth and NAR on September 2, 2022, that the window to file a complaint or civil action was from August 30, 2022, to November 27, 2022.
“On November 18, 2022, a verification specialist at Shield Screening informed the Plaintiff that despite making ‘several attempts’ to contact Defendant, they could not verify the employment details,” the complaint says.
“The Defendant’s refusal to provide a neutral reference for Plaintiff on November 18, 2022 — within the critical window for initiating a civil action — was not merely procedural but a deliberate act of retaliation, timed to undermine Plaintiff’s ability to secure future employment while still exposed to legal uncertainty.
“This action, occurring squarely within the 90-day period for filing suit, demonstrates the Defendant’s intent to chill the exercise of protected rights and punish the Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity.”
Regarding the text messages, Sheth allegedly received them between February 17, 2021, and February 19, 2021.
“These texts line up exactly with the IDHR’s consideration of her case, were sent in response to Plaintiff exercising her rights under federal and Illinois law, and are inherently unlawful,” the complaint says.
“The text messages constitute direct retaliation for Plaintiff’s pending discrimination charge, timed deliberately to coincide with the IDHR’s investigation and her deadline to respond. The messages were not only abusive but were intended to punish Plaintiff for asserting her rights and to deter her from pursuing further legal action.”
The complaint says Sheth hired a private investigator to try to find out who sent the messages.
“The private investigator found that the phone number belonged to an innocent person who shared a name similar to that of Matthew Embrescia’s former wife as well as the first name of an NAR employee who alleged sexual assault against Embrescia,” the complaint says.
Bob Goldberg
“Given that the author would need to know the details of Plaintiff’s complaint, the other employee’s complaint, and Embrescia’s personal life, the Plaintiff believes the text messages instructed to be sent and even possibly sent by Bob Goldberg (Defendant’s former CEO), Mark Birchbach (Defendant’s Executive Vice President – Strategic, Business, Innovation, & Technology), or Matthew Embrescia (NAR Business Partner).”
NAR denied Sheth’s allegations in the June 10 joint status report.
“Defendant denies that it has discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff in any way, and denies that it has breached any contract it has with Plaintiff,” the filing says.
“More specifically, Defendant denies that it refused or failed, at any time, to provide a neutral employment reference for Plaintiff and denies that it has any knowledge of, or involvement in, any ‘anonymous harassing text messages’ that were allegedly sent to Plaintiff.”
Regarding NAR’s statements in that report about the viability of her claims, Sheth asked for the opportunity to conduct discovery in order to further shore up her allegations.
“Plaintiff has made detailed and specific allegations based on the information currently available, and respectfully submits that these allegations are more than sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss,” the filing says.
“Moreover, further discovery is necessary in this matter to uncover additional facts that will further substantiate Plaintiff’s claims, including evidence that is uniquely within Defendant’s possession and control.”
Sheth’s attorney adds that dismissing Sheth’s claims at this stage would be “premature.”
“Allowing the case to proceed to discovery is consistent with the interests of justice and the fair resolution of this dispute,” the filing says.
Email Andrea V. Brambila.
Like me on Facebook | Follow me on Twitter
