New England Biz Law Update
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of religious discrimination and retaliation claims brought by two former Hasbro managers who resigned after the company denied their requests for religious exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The plaintiffs resigned the same day in August 2022. They then sued Hasbro in state court, asserting claims for religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Rhode Island employment discrimination law.
According to the plaintiffs, the COVID vaccination requirement violated their religious beliefs against putting substances into their bodies without their consent. They also expressed the belief that the COVID vaccines had been developed using tissue from aborted fetuses and that getting the shot would violate their religious opposition to abortion.
They alleged that they suffered adverse employment actions, including denials of opportunities for promotion, because of their exemption requests.
After Hasbro removed the case to federal court, a U.S. District Court Judge granted the company’s motion to dismiss in June 2024, concluding as a threshold matter that the plaintiffs’ exemption requests had not been based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
Further, she concluded that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that they were subjected to adverse employment actions in response to protected activity for purposes of proceeding with their discrimination and retaliation claims.
But the 1st Circuit reversed, citing two of its prior decisions, which addressed religion-based objections to employer-mandated COVID vaccinations.
What the court said
Writing for the panel, Judge Seth R. Aframe held that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded religious belief at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
“The plaintiffs here sufficiently alleged that their opposition to taking the COVID-19 vaccine was based on a comprehensive system of religious belief,” the court said. “No more is required at this stage.”
The court rejected the notion that overlap between moral and religious concerns defeated the claims, referencing prior circuit precedent.
“[T]he fact that the plaintiffs’ opposition to abortion may have a moral component or may be held by others solely for moral reasons does not mean that, for these plaintiffs, the position lacks a religious character,” the court noted.
With respect to retaliation, the court said, “[T]here is no obvious nonretaliatory explanation here for why Hasbro investigated and disciplined both plaintiffs for the same alleged violation of company COVID-19 policies months after the violations occurred and just following their accommodation requests.”
The court emphasized that, at the pleading stage, plaintiffs are entitled to have reasonable inferences drawn in their favor and that the allegations, taken together, plausibly stated claims sufficient to survive dismissal.
Practical implications for employers
The ruling does not determine liability. It allows the case to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.
However, it underscores several recurring themes in religious accommodation litigation:
- Courts may accept religion-based objections to vaccination mandates as sufficiently pleaded at the motion-to-dismiss stage, even where the belief overlaps with moral or ethical views.
- Temporal proximity between an accommodation request and discipline can support an inference of retaliation.
- Enforcement of prior policy violations may receive heightened scrutiny if discipline follows protected activity.
- Employers should carefully document legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for disciplinary action and ensure consistent handling of accommodation requests.
The decision reflects continued judicial attention to employer responses to COVID-era policies and reinforces the importance of well-documented processes when addressing religious accommodation requests and related employment decisions.
