Court warns employers: timing matters when discipline follows exemption requests
Two Hasbro employees can pursue claims that the toy giant retaliated against them after they sought religious exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccine policy.
A federal appeals court handed down the decision on January 29, delivering a warning to employers about the perils of timing when it comes to discipline and accommodation requests.
The case involves Jennifer DeAngelis and Natalie Tomaselli, who both worked in Hasbro's Global Brand Publicity division and had been working remotely since the pandemic started in March 2020. When Hasbro announced a vaccination requirement for anyone entering its offices in late 2021, both women requested religious accommodations based on their Christian beliefs.
The women objected to the vaccines on two grounds: they believed forcing substances into their bodies violated their religious convictions, and they understood the vaccines were developed or tested using tissue from aborted fetuses, which conflicted with their faith. Both provided biblical citations supporting their requests.
What happened next is where things got complicated for Hasbro.
Three days after Tomaselli submitted her request in October 2021, her employee badge stopped working. Two weeks later, the company opened an investigation into whether she had failed to wear a mask at a volunteer event where employees cleaned camp cabins. The catch? That event had happened more than three months earlier, back in June.
DeAngelis received a similar surprise. About five weeks after she provided detailed information about her religious beliefs, Hasbro issued her a final written warning for the same June masking incident. Both women say these warnings then blocked them from promotions and triggered other problems at work.
The allegations extended beyond the warnings. Tomaselli says that during a medical leave for stress and anxiety, Hasbro removed her from internal organizational charts while keeping others on leave listed. When she returned in June 2022, her supervisor seemed surprised to see her and then repeatedly asked her to attend events requiring vaccination, despite knowing she was unvaccinated.
DeAngelis claims that when she returned from pregnancy leave, someone else had been hired for her position. Both women say the company changed how they had to request vacation time. DeAngelis also claims the company shared her medical information without approval. They ultimately resigned in August 2022, saying the treatment forced them out.
The timing caught the attention of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed a lower court dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Aframe pointed out something that should make HR professionals take notice: Hasbro had done nothing about the alleged masking violations for roughly three months. Then, within days and weeks of receiving the accommodation requests, investigations and warnings suddenly appeared.
The court found this sequence plausible enough to suggest retaliation. Adding to the concern was what the court saw as arguably disproportionate punishments for the alleged infractions.
The district court had initially dismissed the case, ruling that the women's exemption requests were not actually based on religion. The judge distinguished between having religious beliefs about not mistreating one's body and whether the specific belief that vaccines constitute mistreatment stems from religion. The court also said opposition to abortion was moral rather than religious.
The appeals court disagreed, citing two recent decisions involving employees who refused COVID vaccines on religious grounds. The court made clear that opposition to abortion can have religious character, and that beliefs about one's body as a temple, when rooted in religious faith, deserve protection under federal law.
The decision offers concrete lessons for HR teams still navigating accommodation requests. The court emphasized that when disciplinary actions follow closely after accommodation requests, employers face serious scrutiny. The three-day gap before Tomaselli's badge deactivation and the two-week window before investigations started were enough to raise questions.
Equally important was the delay in enforcement. If a policy violation happens in June but no one investigates until October, right after an accommodation request, that pattern looks suspicious. The court also noted that proportionality matters. Discipline that seems harsh relative to the alleged misconduct, especially when imposed shortly after protected activity, invites closer examination.
For HR professionals, the case underscores that accommodation requests create a sensitive period. Any disciplinary actions taken during or immediately after that window will face heightened scrutiny, particularly if they involve incidents from weeks or months earlier.
The court stressed that these are still allegations that must be proven. The employees will need to present evidence, and Hasbro will have the opportunity to present its defenses. But the case now moves forward, and the appeals court has made clear that the pattern alleged is plausible enough to warrant further proceedings.
The case returns to district court, where discovery will reveal what actually motivated Hasbro's actions. But the message to employers is already clear: watch the calendar, document your reasons, and think twice before investigating old incidents right after someone asks for religious accommodation.
