Yesterday afternoon, I appeared for a court hearing in my federal case against Sezzle, Inc.

During the hearing, Defendant’s counsel asked the Court to remove a substantial number of witnesses from my Witness List. Their position was that I had not disclosed these individuals during discovery. I responded that each witness was included for specific reasons related to my claims. I also noted that litigation is ongoing and fluid, and that new developments and information continue to emerge as the case progresses.

The Court did not grant Defendant’s request to remove any witnesses at this time. The judge indicated that if Sezzle wishes to challenge any of the witnesses on my list, they may file appropriate motions.

As a Pro Se litigant, I have worked diligently to identify and prepare the witnesses necessary to present my claims. I believe I have the right to call witnesses who can provide relevant testimony regarding my claims, my performance during my employment, and the events that led to my termination.

Additionally, since mid-December 2025, I have experienced ongoing surveillance and inappropriate conduct that I believe was intended to intimidate and pressure me in connection with this litigation. I have documented these events in detail, including through video testimony available on my media page. I am fully prepared to call individuals who were involved in this inappropriate conduct, as well as customers who may have been affected by Sezzle’s compliance practices, should it become necessary to present a complete record to the jury.

I remain fully committed to this process and will continue preparing my case so that all relevant evidence can be presented fairly in court.

Warm regards,
Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections based on publicly available information and my ongoing legal matters (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado). Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. Readers are encouraged to review the full public records on PACER for complete context.

Today marks exactly two years since Sezzle terminated me.

On May 28, 2024, I was told my position was being terminated. At the time, I had no idea how long and difficult this road would become. What I did know was that I had raised serious concerns about compliance and pay disparity — and shortly after, I was let go.

Since that day, I initially sought legal representation to help navigate this complex process. However, after being misled by counsel early on, I made the difficult decision to proceed on my own. Since then, I have fought this battle as a Pro Se litigant — without a lawyer, without a legal team, and no financial resources.  Just me, standing on principle, trying to hold a publicly traded company accountable through the legal system.

Despite the challenges, I have stayed in this fight every single day.

Today, after nearly two years of working through discovery, motions, and multiple administrative proceedings, I took another important step forward. I filed my Witness List, Exhibit List, and Proposed Final Pretrial Order. I have built a strong witness list that includes current and former Sezzle executives — individuals with direct knowledge of my role, my performance, and the events that ultimately led to my termination.

This road has never been easy. Fighting a well-funded corporation as a Pro Se litigant comes with constant obstacles. Nevertheless, I have remained committed to the process because I believe the truth matters and because I believe no employee should be punished for speaking up about what they reasonably believe are violations of the law.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections based on publicly available information and my ongoing legal matters (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado). Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. Readers are encouraged to review the full public records on PACER for complete context.

The momentum continues to build.

Shortly after six firms announced investigations, two more prominent shareholder rights law firms — Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith — have now publicly launched probes into Sezzle Inc. (NASDAQ: SEZL) for potential violations of federal securities laws.

The growing list now stands at eight firms: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC; Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.; Pomerantz LLP; Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz; The Schall Law Firm; Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP; Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.; and the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith.

All of this stems from the same alarming event: the abrupt resignation of board member Karen Webster on April 3, 2026. Webster, who served on the Audit and Risk Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, stepped down immediately, citing “a growing difference in perspective with management concerning the Company’s direction, key decisions, and governance.” When a director with oversight responsibility for audit and risk chooses to walk away with that kind of statement, it sends a powerful signal. Sezzle reported the resignation to the SEC on April 9, triggering an immediate 13.6% drop in share price. What began as one director’s exit has now drawn the attention of eight experienced securities litigation firms examining whether Sezzle and its executives failed to provide investors with accurate and complete information.

For me, this hits especially close to home. As Sezzle’s former AML Officer for 14 months, I raised repeated concerns about serious compliance issues — concerns that traveled through the very governance channels Karen Webster was responsible for overseeing. Watching these developments unfold has only reinforced what I have maintained from the beginning. This is not an isolated event. It is part of a larger pattern of internal control weaknesses, governance concerns, and transparency issues that have been building for some time.

I continue to pursue my retaliation lawsuit in federal court because I firmly believe no employee should ever be punished for speaking up about potential regulatory violations.

With every new law firm investigation and every additional public filing, the record grows louder — and the truth becomes harder to ignore.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections based on publicly available information and my ongoing legal matters (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado). All facts regarding Sezzle’s board changes, director resignation, and securities investigations are taken directly from the Company’s SEC filings and the public announcements of the investigating law firms. Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. Readers are encouraged to review the full public records on SEC.gov and PACER for complete context.

Sezzle is unraveling at the very top — and the public record just got a lot louder.

Most companies try to settle employment disputes quickly and quietly. 

So why has Sezzle done the exact opposite?

Since my termination in May 2024, Sezzle has taken an extraordinarily aggressive approach in my federal lawsuit, my Department of Labor case, and my EEOC claims. Their lawyers have filed hostile briefs, labeled me an “extortionist” in open court records, and sent process servers to my door at night. They continue to claim I was fired for “performance issues” — despite zero verbal or written warnings and a CEO-signed raise and bonus just weeks earlier.

This is not normal litigation behavior. 

Instead of addressing the merits of my claims — unequal pay for substantially similar work and retaliation for raising serious compliance concerns — Sezzle has chosen to attack me personally. After my December 18, 2025 deposition, they even deleted 20 minutes of video footage that contained damaging testimony.

One has to ask: What are they so afraid of?

The timing tells the story. 

My protected complaints about pay disparity and potential regulatory issues came immediately before I was demoted and terminated. Less than two years later, a Sezzle board member who sat on the Audit and Risk Committee resigned abruptly, citing “growing differences in perspective with management concerning the Company’s direction, key decisions, and governance.” The stock dropped sharply, and six major law firms are now investigating Sezzle for potential securities fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Maybe my case isn’t just about one employee’s retaliation. 

Maybe it’s about silencing the one person who saw behind the curtain.

I will continue to fight this case on all fronts and the more aggressively Sezzle comes after me, the more it confirms: I am definitely on the right track.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections based on publicly available information and my ongoing legal matters (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado). All facts regarding Sezzle’s board changes, director resignation, stock movement, and the six law firms’ investigations are taken directly from the Company’s SEC filings and the public announcements of the investigating firms. Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. Readers are encouraged to review the full public records on SEC.gov and PACER for complete context.

Sezzle is unraveling at the very top — and the public record just got a lot louder.

Six major shareholder rights law firms announced they are investigating Sezzle Inc. (NASDAQ: SEZL) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. The trigger? A stunning resignation from one of the company’s own board members.

On April 3, 2026, Karen Webster — a director who sat on the Audit and Risk Committee, the Compensation Committee, and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee — resigned effective immediately. In her letter, she cited “a growing difference in perspective with management concerning the Company’s direction, key decisions, and governance.” Let that sink in. When a board member responsible for audit and risk oversight walks away citing fundamental disagreements with management, it is not a minor disagreement. It is a five-alarm fire. 

Sezzle disclosed the resignation in an SEC filing on April 9, 2026. The market’s reaction was immediate and brutal — shares dropped more than 13.6% the very next trading day. Now six experienced securities firms — Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC; Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.; Pomerantz LLP; Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz; The Schall Law Firm; and Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP — have publicly launched investigations on behalf of investors. They are looking into whether Sezzle issued false or misleading statements or failed to disclose critical information. 

This is not speculation. 

This is what happens when the people inside the boardroom can no longer stay silent.

And here’s what makes this especially significant for my case: I spent 14 months as Sezzle’s AML Officer — the very role the company needed to satisfy its bank sponsor and meet regulatory requirements. I raised serious concerns about compliance practices, including an algorithm that was improperly sending paid-up borrowers to collections. Those concerns went straight to the top and through the normal channels, into the governance structure that Karen Webster was responsible for overseeing. Now one of the very board members tasked with audit and risk oversight has resigned over “key decisions and governance.” 

This is not an isolated incident. 

This is a pattern.

From internal control weaknesses disclosed in their own filings, to the abrupt firing of their previous auditor, to a board member on the Audit Committee walking out the door — the cracks at Sezzle are impossible to ignore.

I continue to fight my own retaliation case in federal court because I believe no employee should be punished for speaking up about what they reasonably believe are violations of financial regulations. 

The fact that a sitting Audit Committee member has now publicly signaled deep concerns at the governance level only strengthens the public record I have been building for nearly two years.

To every current and former Sezzle employee, every investor, and every person who has ever been told to stay quiet: You are not alone.

The truth has a way of finding the light — one SEC filing, one resignation letter, and one court docket at a time.

I will keep sharing the public record as it unfolds. Because sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections based on publicly available information and my ongoing legal matters (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado). All facts regarding Sezzle’s board changes, director resignation, and securities investigations are taken directly from the Company’s SEC filings and the public announcements of the investigating law firms. Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. Readers are encouraged to review the full public records on SEC.gov and PACER for complete context.

Sezzle is once again showing cracks at the very top.

On April 3, 2026, board member Karen Webster resigned effective immediately. She served on the Audit, Compensation, and Nominating & Corporate Governance committees — the exact groups responsible for keeping the company honest.

In her resignation letter, Webster stated there was a “growing difference in perspective with management” regarding the company’s strategic direction, key decisions, and governance.

Let me translate that: when a director who sits on the Audit Committee walks away while the company is dealing with a disclosed material weakness in its internal controls and just fired its auditor, it’s not a small disagreement. It’s a major red flag.

Just weeks earlier, Sezzle had to admit it did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025. Their former auditor, Baker Tilly, called out serious problems with how the company classifies cash flows connected to notes receivable. Sezzle’s response? Quickly dismiss Baker Tilly and bring in PwC as the new auditor for 2026.

Now one of their own board members — someone with direct oversight over audit and governance — is out the door citing serious differences with management.

These are not isolated incidents. This is a pattern.

Strong governance isn’t optional when you’re a publicly traded company handling people’s money and data. When board members start walking away and auditors are being replaced amid control weaknesses, everyday employees and shareholders deserve to know.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections based on publicly available information and my ongoing legal matters (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN). All facts regarding Sezzle’s board changes and disclosures are taken from the company’s SEC filings. Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. Readers are encouraged to review the full public records for complete context.

In the months since my last reflection, several meaningful steps have advanced through the legal process. 

On March 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board issued a Decision and Order that reversed the earlier dismissal of my SOX whistleblower retaliation claim as untimely. By granting equitable tolling—acknowledging that the claim had been raised in a timely manner in federal court—the Board remanded the matter for further proceedings. This decision serves as a powerful reminder that procedural obstacles can sometimes yield when the deeper pursuit of truth and accountability remains steadfast, allowing the facts to continue being examined. 

Separately, my EEOC charge of discrimination has moved forward into the Enforcement Unit for investigation, continuing the effort to address retaliation and related workplace issues through the proper channels. 

Meanwhile, in the federal court case, momentum has held steady through these recent months. On March 9, 2026, I filed a Motion for a Jury Trial under the Seventh Amendment, asserting this fundamental Constitutional right to have the facts of the case decided by a jury of my peers. Having held steady in court for over 18 months, I continue working diligently toward this important milestone, trusting the process to allow the full presentation of evidence and a fair resolution in open court. 

I remain steadfast in my commitment to the legal process, am focused on transparency, and determined to continue sharing the honest unfolding of my journey.

Thank you for your continued interest in the public record and for your unwavering support. 

More to come.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections on ongoing legal matters, including my federal lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado) and related administrative proceedings (ARB Case No. 2025-0074; EEOC Charge No. 541-2025-04854). Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. All matters remain pending, and facts will be determined by the courts and agencies through the established legal process. I encourage readers to review the public records on PACER, the Department of Labor’s system, or EEOC resources for full context.

Today, I learned that Sezzle spent more than seven hours in a federal settlement conference in Minnesota Court.

The case involves a former employee who alleges he was terminated shortly after requesting parental leave - a protected right under federal and state law.

Seven hours of mediation.

No settlement reached.

That's a long time to sit in a room trying to resolve a claim that, from the outside, looks a lot like retaliation.

It reminds me of something I've said before: when a company repeatedly faces allegations of punishing employees for exercising basic workplace rights, it's worth asking what message that sends to everyone still inside the building.

I don't know the exact details of that case, and the court will decide the facts in due course. But, the pattern of former employees seeking justice in federal court speaks for itself.

My own case moves forward on its own track and discovery continues. 

To every current or former Sezzle employee reading this: you are not invisible. Your rights matter. And sometimes, the truth finds its way into public records one docket entry at a time.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections on ongoing legal matters, including my federal lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado) and related administrative proceedings. Nothing in this post should be taken as a finally adjudicated fact. I remain committed to resolving all matters through the established legal process and thank everyone who continues to follow the public record.

A few days ago, I wrote about the long road since my position at Sezzle ended.

Today, I want to tell you about something I never saw coming. Messages arriving from people I have never met.

Here are some of the words that have carried me:

“I was wrongfully terminated too. Watching you fight gives me hope.” – R.

“My daughter is in law school because of people like you.” – T.

“You’re proving one person really can demand the truth.” – M.

“I’m a retired judge and I check your docket every week. Keep going.” – J.

“I pray for you every night. My husband was fired for reporting fraud. He never got his day. Thank you for taking yours.” – L.

“I was told to take the severance and disappear. Watching you refuse is the reason I filed my own case last month.” – N.

I read every single one.

And every time, a new message appears, reminding me I’m not fighting alone.

To everyone who has taken thirty seconds to tell a stranger she is seen: thank you.

Warm regards,

Jackie Prkic

Disclaimer: These are my personal reflections on an ongoing lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN). All facts will be decided by the court in due course. Thank you for respecting the legal process and for every kind word you have sent along the way.