No. 23-1951

REGINA M. THORNTON,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

IPSEN BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Jennifer C. Boal, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

Barron, Chief Judge, Thompson and Gelpí, Circuit Judges.

Richard C. Chambers, Jr., with whom Joseph Spinale was on brief, for appellant.

Jonathan Rosenfeld and Michael Lenzi, with whom Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP was on brief, for appellee.

January 16, 2025 GELPÍ, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Regina M. Thornton ("Thornton") was employed by Defendant-Appellee Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Ipsen") as Associate Director - Patient Safety. In September 2021, Ipsen implemented a policy requiring its employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Citing her religious beliefs, Thornton submitted a request for an exemption from the vaccination requirement, which Ipsen denied. After Thornton did not comply with the vaccination requirement, Ipsen terminated her employment.

Thornton sued Ipsen in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex, alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) ("Title VII"), and the corresponding Massachusetts law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B ("Chapter 151B"); the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights ("MDR"). Ipsen removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and moved to dismiss all counts. The United States Magistrate Judge who presided over the case with the parties' consent granted Ipsen's motion, dismissing Thornton's complaint. Thornton appealed.

For the reasons explained below, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

- 2 - I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Because "this appeal follows the granting of a motion to dismiss, we draw the relevant facts from the plaintiff's complaint" and "from documentation incorporated by reference in the complaint." Rivera–Díaz v. Humana Ins. of P.R., Inc., 748 F.3d 387, 388 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 558-59 (1st Cir. 2005)). In reciting the facts, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations "and draw[] all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Squeri v. Mount Ida Coll., 954 F.3d 56, 61 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing Penate v. Hanchett, 944 F.3d 358, 362 (1st Cir. 2019)).

On September 7, 2021, Ipsen implemented a policy requiring its employees to become "fully vaccinated" against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the vaccination policy, employees would be "considered fully vaccinated for COVID-19 two weeks after [the employee] ha[d] received the second dose in a two-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) or two weeks after they ha[d] received a single-dose vaccine (Johnson and Johnson/Janssen)." Those who failed to provide timely proof of vaccination were subject to termination for cause.

The policy, however, provided a procedure by which employees could request a religious exemption from the vaccination

- 3 - requirement. To do so, an employee needed to submit an accommodation request form accompanied by "a written statement describing [