Monica Bravo, a longtime International Bra Sewing Bee instructor, reached out to Dani Martin at Robins Accounting, expressing growing concerns among multiple instructors regarding missing compensation, lack of financial transparency, and potential contract violations.
The concerns of Monica and other instructors had been ignored, dismissed, or met with vague responses when raised privately with Sue.
Seeking a third-party advocate, Monica asked Dani Martin to act as an outside voice to ensure instructors' concerns were presented collectively and taken seriously by Sue.
Dani Martin, financial analyst, on behalf of the instructors, sent an email to Sue that included:
A formal request for financial transparency, specifically asking for a breakdown of Vault and Extended Access revenue and clarification of how instructor payouts were calculated.
A request for open discussion on unpaid compensation, including any discrepancies between what instructors were promised and what they actually received.
A request for the International Bra Sewing Bee to address concerns professionally and in good faith, offering to work toward a resolution without escalating the situation publicly within 15 days.
Simultaneously, a physical letter was mailed outlining these same concerns to ensure that the International Bra Sewing Bee could not claim ignorance of the situation.
Weather delays slowed the arrival of the physical letter, but Sue was already in receipt of the email and aware of the concerns being raised as she responded with an acknowledgement within 15 days of the email being received, but did not respond substantively until her attorney responded with a letter dated January 20th, 2025.
Sue and the International Bra Sewing Bee Team publicly reframed the instructor departures, claiming in a community post that:
Instructor content was being removed as a “strategic decision” rather than due to payment disputes or contract questions.
The International Bra Sewing Bee Team claimed instructors had “chosen” to remove their content because they now offer paid classes elsewhere, which was not the request of the instructors in any way, shape, or form.
International Bra Sewing Bee had plans to replace the removed content by recording the same material with different instructors, downplaying the loss of key instructors.
Sue’s attorney responded, stating that Robins Accounting was not a neutral third party and should not act as a mediator.
The attorney suggested using Angela Gough as a mediator, however, she is an instructor and paid independent contractor of the International Bra Sewing Bee and as such, is not a neutral third party.
The attorney initially indicated that Sue had a willingness to review financial records but provided no timeline for doing so.
The attorney made the claim that some instructors had not fulfilled the advertising requirement of the contract. However, no further details nor supporting evidence was provided to support this claim.
The affected instructors immediately recognized Sue's statement as an attempt to shift the narrative, making it appear as though they had left voluntarily rather than due to the International Bra Sewing Bee's refusal to have a discussion regarding compensation.
Instructors released a unified statement via email and industry networks, with the following graphic
In the instructors’ correspondence back to Sue’s attorney, they explicitly pointed out:
Sue’s misrepresentation of events, as she attempted to frame the situation as a business decision rather than an ethical issue regarding questions around compensation.
The retaliatory nature of Sue’s actions, including the removal of instructor content immediately after financial concerns were raised, despite no formal requests for removal.
The harm to instructors' reputations, as Sue’s framing implied they had voluntarily withdrawn from the International Bra Sewing Bee, rather than being excluded for requesting clarity around compensation and contractual obligations.
Sue’s attorney explicitly warned that instructors that making public statements discourages collaboration. The instructors pointed out that Sue had made a public statement, the day prior to the date of her attorney’s response, which conflicts with his guidance to the teacher group. Her actions further eroded trust.
February 18, 2025 – Sue’s Initial Call & NDA Request
Sue Folts called Dani Martin, requesting an immediate discussion regarding instructor compensation concerns.
Dani requested that Sue confirm that her attorney is no longer representing her in this engagement with the teacher group, and her response was, “He is not representing me, but he is still consulting with me on this.”
Sue requested that a confidentiality agreement be signed before moving forward with discussions.
Dani provided a drafted a confidentiality agreement for Sue’s review.
Sue did not sign the agreement.
February 18-19, 2025 – Non-Compete & Confidentiality Discussions
Sue’s initial request for confidentiality suggested that discussions about financial details should remain private, and not disclosed to the teachers claiming it was “proprietary information.”
In email correspondence, Sue further requested that the instructors also sign a non-compete agreement before any financial details would be shared.
The instructors, through Dani, declined the request, arguing that their businesses were existing separately and prior to their engagement with her company.
Dani sought clarification on how Sue was defining confidentiality in this context, given that compensation agreements are based on these financial details.
After further back and forth, Sue agreed to move forward with the meeting on February 19, 2025, without the confidentiality or non-competes in place.
On February 19, 2025, Dani Martin met with Sue Folts via Zoom to discuss unresolved financial concerns regarding instructor compensation. The conversation was recorded with the consent of all parties. Only the audio and transcript are available, but because individual compensation and confidential information were discussed, the full recording will not be made public.
During the February 19th meeting, confidentiality and proprietary information were discussed in depth between Dani Martin and Sue Folts. Sue expressed concerns about sharing financial details, particularly revenue and expense structures, stating:
“As I said before, I'm completely willing for you to sign your confidentiality agreement, but I consider the top line and the specific cost structure of my event to be proprietary information. And so therefore I don't feel comfortable with that being shared with others.”
Dani countered this by emphasizing that financial data related to instructor compensation is not proprietary information, as it directly impacts their pay. Dani clarified:
“You have made this part of their compensation structure in your contract. You have agreed that this is what is going to consist of their compensation, and they do have a right to understand where those numbers are coming from.”
Sue ultimately agreed to share some financial data but attempted to limit what could be disclosed to instructors. She stated:
“I am happy to disclose them to you. I just ask that you not disclose those details to them.”
Dani reiterated that without third-party validation or reconciliation, these numbers could not be verified as accurate:
“Without reconciliation, it's a story that has not been validated.”.
Following the meeting, it was clear that Sue did not possess the required information to clarify the teachers' concerns.
Instructors sent an official request for:
Deposit verification and revenue breakdown for the Bee, Vault, and Extended Access.
Profit and loss statements, validated by an external accountant.
Financial records and confirmations to be sent within 30 days.
Sue responded:
She stated she would not comply at this time, and the teacher group could renew their request over two months later, after May 1st.
Claimed she would charge $75/hour for any time spent preparing the financials that she should already possess, as they are the basis of payment.
Asserted her right to recover overpayments by claiming financial losses. In her follow-up email she stated:
“The Bra Bee had no profits in 2024, instead there was a loss…”
After admitting to fabricating the compensation numbers for instructors in 2024, the claim of losses had no additional or supplemental validation or calculations.
The group gave Sue 30 days to produce the requested documents.
In the absence of an adequate response, the group prepared to issue a public statement.
An informative email was prepared for all current and former International Bra Sewing Bee instructors, detailing missing payments, questionable business practices, and financial irregularities.
A cease and desist letter was drafted and provided with the public statement, requesting:
Removal of all unauthorized instructor content.
Immediate payment of outstanding balances.
Disclosure of accurate financial data.
A public statement (this document) was prepared, providing full transparency.
The instructors who helped build the International Bra Sewing Bee deserve fair compensation, transparency, and respect. The sewing and education communities are built on trust, and Sue’s actions have severely damaged that trust.
We urge those affected to come forward, share their experiences, and support efforts to hold the International Bra Sewing Bee accountable.
This statement will remain publicly available as a reference to prevent unethical behavior within the industry.