Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is asking a federal court to cap a disability-discrimination coverage dispute at $5,000 - not the $500,000 its insured says it bought.
In court papers filed on April 23, 2026 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the carrier lays out what it says is an awkwardly timed attempt by an Illinois employer to increase its Employment Practices Liability limits just as a discrimination claim was taking shape. The filing asks the court to confirm that only an eroding $5,000 EPL limit applies to the underlying charge, or, failing that, to rescind the endorsement that lifted the limit to $500,000.
The dispute centers on Scholarships.com, LLC, a Highland Park-based company, and Paige Caroline Goldstone, a former writer there. According to the filing, Goldstone, who says she has PTSD, asked on November 17, 2025 for a hybrid schedule that would let her work from home three days a week. Scholarships.com formally turned down the request on January 14, 2026, saying her role required regular on-site presence and that remote work would be an undue hardship.
On January 29, 2026, Goldstone's lawyer sent a letter to Scholarships.com's CEO and others, saying the denial was unlawful under the Illinois Human Rights Act and warning that she would treat herself as constructively discharged if nothing changed.
Four days later, on February 2, 2026, Goldstone resigned. The carrier alleges that, on that same day, Scholarships.com signed an application to raise its EPL limit from $5,000 to $500,000, and asked for the change to be backdated to February 1 - one day before the resignation. The application reached Hartford on February 10, 2026. Goldstone filed her charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on or about February 18, 2026, and it was tendered to Hartford on or about March 3, 2026.
Hartford's filing argues the math does not work for the higher limit. The endorsement, it says, caps claims tied to wrongful acts "prior to 02/01/26" at $5,000, and reserves the $500,000 limit for claims where "all" wrongful acts happened on or after that date. The formal accommodation denial, the carrier points out, came on January 14.
The carrier also points to the policy's interrelated-claims language, which treats related claims as a single claim dating to the earliest one - here, it says, the January 29 demand letter. And it leans on the policy's application clause, which voids coverage where answers "materially affect the acceptance of the risk." On the midterm application, the filing states, questions about prior employment-related claims and known circumstances that might give rise to one were answered "None" and "No."
Hartford is separately asking the court to find it has no duty to defend or indemnify under the Business Liability and Umbrella parts of the policy, citing the Employer's Liability and Employment-Related Practices exclusions.
For EPL underwriters, brokers, and claims teams, the filing reads like a working example of why midterm limit hikes draw close scrutiny when they arrive on the heels of a demand letter.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Scholarships.com and Goldstone have not yet filed responses, and no ruling has been issued.
