Where (1) pregnancy-related discrimination claims were brought against an employer, (2) following the entry of a default judgment, the employee filed a complaint against a defendant insurance company that issued a policy covering losses stemming from wrongful employment practices and (3) the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was allowed because the employer received constructive notice of the plaintiff’s claims before the start of the policy period, that judgment should be affirmed under applicable New Hampshire law.
“In March 2019, [the employee] filed an administrative complaint with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’). In it, she alleged that her former employer, Mammoth Tech, Inc. (‘Mammoth’), discriminated against her on the basis of sex and retaliated against her during her pregnancy. …
“In January 2021, [the employee] filed suit against Mammoth in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, bringing various claims — including claims alleging sex- and pregnancy-based discrimination and retaliation — that were rooted in the company’s treatment of her while she was pregnant. The district court entered a default judgment in March 2023 against Mammoth on all of [the employee]’s claims and ordered the company to pay her $303,592.20 in back pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
“Nearly two years later, in 2025, [the employee] filed a different action in the United...
Compliance It’s the second federal contractor to settle with the Department of Justice over claims related to DEI programs without admitting to any wrongdoing. August 31, 2026 • 3 min read I-9 in n...