Panel revives religious bias, retaliation claims vs. Hasbro

Listen to this article

Two Hasbro managers who resigned after not receiving exemptions from the toymaker’s COVID-19 vaccination policy stated plausible claims for retaliation and religious discrimination under federal and state law, a panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal of the case.

Plaintiffs Natalie Tomaselli and Jennifer DeAngelis resigned the same day in August 2022 after Hasbro denied their requests for exemptions on religious grounds from the company’s COVID vaccination policy.

The plaintiffs sued Hasbro in Providence Superior Court, asserting claims for religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Rhode Island employment discrimination law.

According to the plaintiffs, they each suffered adverse employment actions, including denials of opportunities for promotion, because of their exemption requests.

After Hasbro removed the case to federal court, U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy granted Hasbro’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.

In reversing the dismissal, the 1st Circuit concluded that its August 2024 decision in Bazinet v. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Inc. and 2025 decision in Thornton v. Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., which upheld religion-based objections to employer-mandated COVID vaccinations, undermined the trial judge’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ refusal to get vaccinated was based on grounds other than religious belief.

“The plaintiffs here sufficiently alleged that their opposition to taking the COVID-19 vaccine was based on a comprehensive system of religious belief,” Judge Seth R. Aframe wrote for the panel. “No more is required at this stage.”

Further, the panel concluded that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that there was a causal connection between their protected activity — i.e., their religion-based exemptions requests — and the alleged adverse employment actions by Hasbro, to state plausible claims for both retaliation and discrimination.

With respect to retaliation, the panel pointed to the plaintiffs’ allegations that Hasbro initiated an investigation into their purported violation of a workplace policy by failing to wear masks at a volunteer event months after the event.

“[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,” Aframe wrote. “There are other possible explanations — and Hasbro has suggested one, noting that neither plaintiff claims that they were wearing a mask at the volunteer event or otherwise alleges compliance with the masking policy at that event. But the facts alleged do not make those other explanations so strong, or the plaintiffs’ retaliatory explanation so weak, that dismissal is warranted.”

The 28-page decision is DeAngelis, et al. v. Hasbro, Inc., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-021-26.

Temporal proximity

The decision “sends a message” to employers that timing is critical, according to East Providence employment attorney Louise A. Herman.

“Particularly in retaliation claims, the closer in time, the greater the inference that [the adverse action] was retaliatory,” Herman said. “Time and again throughout this decision, the court focused on temporal proximity both in terms of when there was an adverse action close in time to the protected conduct and the inverse, finding it suggestive when the employer delayed and failed to take action based on conduct that had occurred months earlier.”

What you see here is the 1st Circuit policing the 12(b)(6) boundary.

— Andrew R. Dennington, Boston

Herman added that the court made an important point by emphasizing that a plaintiff’s allegations should be considered “as a whole” in such cases.

“It is a classic defense tactic to try to isolate each incident and dismiss it versus looking at the conduct in its totality,” Herman said. “The court referenced on several occasions the fact that some of these claims of adverse action and retaliation may not suffice on their own [to establish discriminatory animus], but when considered in the context of the other allegations, [they] take on a different meaning,” Herman said.

Boston litigator Andrew R. Dennington, who represents employers, viewed the case as a primer on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

“What you see here is the 1st Circuit policing the 12(b)(6) boundary,” Dennington said. “As much as Hasbro had a lot of reasons to enforce the policy that it had, let’s say there was another employee who did not believe in taking the vaccine, but their belief was not grounded in religion. Would Hasbro have responded the same way? It’s plausible [from the facts alleged by the plaintiffs] that its response to these two employees was made harsher by the fact that they just didn’t like the plaintiffs’ [religious beliefs].”

Providence employer-side attorney Alicia J. Samolis said the 1st Circuit reached the correct conclusion given the standard for motions to dismiss.

“When Hasbro moves for summary judgment, they … probably will win,” Samolis said. “Here, what the plaintiffs said about [seeking] a religious accommodation was clearly enough, and they alleged a number of consequences that are closely related in time. Even though they didn’t get fired as in other cases, this clearly would be enough [to support claims] for discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation [for purposes of defeating Hasbro’s motion to dismiss].”

On the other hand, Samolis said the decision serves as a warning to employers.

“I’m encouraging employers to think about religious accommodations more seriously,” she said. “It used to be that all an employer would have to show was that there was more than a de minimis cost to avoid a religious accommodation. Now that standard has completely changed. You need to show substantial costs in relation to the business. That means no longer can an employer treat the religious accommodation piece less seriously.”

Samolis added that she expects religious accommodation to become a much larger part of her litigation practice.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Stephen T. Fanning of Providence, was unavailable for comment. Providence attorney Leslie D. Parker, who represents Hasbro, did not respond to a request for comment.

Twin resignations

As alleged in the complaint, Tomaselli worked as Hasbro’s associate manager for global brand publicity, having started with the company in 2018. DeAngelis joined Hasbro in 2012 and at the time of the events in question was Hasbro’s senior manager for global brand publicity.

In June 2021, during the COVID pandemic, both plaintiffs participated in a company sponsored volunteer event at which Hasbro employees cleaned vacant camp cabins. Contrary to company policy in effect at the time, neither plaintiff wore a face mask at the event.

In late 2021, Hasbro adopted a policy requiring all employees be vaccinated for COVID before being allowed to enter the company’s offices. Meanwhile, in response to the pandemic, both plaintiffs had begun to work remotely from home.

On Oct. 7, 2021, Tomaselli requested an exemption from the vaccination requirement, explaining that, as an observant Christian, the requirement violated her religious belief against putting substances into her body without her consent. She also expressed her belief that the COVID vaccines had been developed using tissue from aborted fetuses and that getting the shot would violate her religious opposition to abortion.

At some point, DeAngelis also requested an exemption from the vaccine policy. On Sept. 20, 2021, Hasbro requested more information about her requested accommodation. In response, DeAngelis cited religious objections similar to those raised by Tomaselli.

Both plaintiffs alleged that they suffered a series of adverse employment actions after seeking exemptions from the vaccination policy.

For example, Tomaselli alleged that her employee badge was disabled days after requesting the accommodation, meaning she could no longer enter Hasbro offices or attend any event requiring company identification.

Further, the company allegedly launched an investigation into Tomaselli’s failure to wear a face mask at the volunteer event, which resulted in a written warning for violation of a workplace policy that she was told made her ineligible for promotions.

The plaintiff alleged that after she took medical leave caused in part by the stress and anxiety she experienced at work, upon her return to work her supervisor asked her to participate in a number of events that required her full vaccination, despite knowing that she was unvaccinated.

Tomaselli tendered her resignation on Aug. 22, 2022, citing severe and pervasive harassment and retaliation. At the time of her resignation, Hasbro had not acted on her vaccine accommodation request.

DeAngelis also resigned on Aug. 22, 2022, after allegedly experiencing a similar response from Hasbro over her requested vaccine exemption.

DeAngelis alleged that, on Oct. 27, 2021, Hasbro issued her a written warning apparently related to her failure to wear a mask at the June volunteer event. The warning allegedly asserted that DeAngelis had failed to show ethical leadership and jeopardized the health and safety of others by not wearing a mask.

The warning allegedly threatened DeAngelis with discharge and, as with the warning issued to Tomaselli, allegedly removed her from consideration for promotion. DeAngelis further alleged that, after returning from medical leave for a pregnancy, she found that Hasbro had filled her position with a new hire. She alleged that she was denied access to Hasbro offices and events.

According to DeAngelis, the company’s actions left her no choice but to resign.

Dismissal overturned

Tomaselli and DeAngelis brought claims against Hasbro for retaliation and discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act.

As a threshold matter, Aframe noted that, under 1st Circuit precedent, claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Act are analyzed together with Title VII claims for purposes of appeal.

Although not argued by the defendant employer, the panel found in the first instance that the trial judge erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs’ refusal to be vaccinated was not grounded in sincerely held religious belief.

“As we explained in Bazinet, the 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,” Aframe wrote. “And, as we explained in Thornton, ‘my-body-is-my-temple arguments rooted in a plaintiff’s religious beliefs are sufficient to plead the existence of a bona fide religious belief’ for the purposes of Title VII.”

In reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims, the panel rejected Hasbro’s argument that the complaint failed to adequately allege causation due to insufficient factual allegations suggesting discriminatory motive.

“[F]or reasons similar to those provided for the retaliation claims, we conclude that, based on (1) Hasbro’s initial delay in enforcing company policy; (2) the temporal proximity of the plaintiffs’ disclosure of their particular religious beliefs to the alleged adverse employment action based on the claimed policy violation; and (3) the arguably disproportionate nature of the punishment for the violation, the plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that they suffered actionable religious discrimination,” Aframe wrote.