Bullying Accountability

Child Safety • Teacher Protection • Institutional Responsibility

A public-interest site documenting bullying-related institutional failures, retaliation against reporters, and the need for accountability in schools and other child-serving systems.

Key Quotes From the Documents

The excerpts below are drawn from the lawsuit and MCAD complaint in MacMillan v. Kingsley Montessori School. are included here because the lawsuit is not only about legal procedure. It is about children, families, teachers, silence, and the public risk created when reports of bullying are not meaningfully investigated. These quotes highlight the human stakes behind the court record and point readers toward the full documents for context.

View the Lawsuit (pdf)

View the MCAD Complaint (pdf)

View More Court Documents

Quote Topics

1. Children At Risk

Quotes about the vulnerable child, lasting developmental harm, parents not being told, and why investigation mattered.

“The nature and duration of the bullying were severe enough to cause lasting developmental harm to the vulnerable child, who needed careful, long-term support to address its effects.” - Lawsuit, page 15

“What can be stated is that the conduct was persistent, emotionally damaging, and fueled by unsubstantiated fears among certain parents who convinced their children that the vulnerable student posed a threat.”

- Lawsuit, page 14

“This misinformation spread between households, resulting in a group dynamic that targeted the student repeatedly and disrupted the safety of the classroom environment over the course of several months.”

- Lawsuit, page 14

“She remained gravely concerned that the vulnerable child’s parents had never been fully informed of what their child had endured.” - Lawsuit, page 15.

“Plaintiff’s intent in making her October 31, 2022 report was to obtain administrative sanction to communicate fully and lawfully with the child’s parents about what had happened, overriding Defendant Brennan’s directive of silence.” - Lawsuit, page 15.

“Instead, Kingsley removed the vulnerable child from Plaintiff’s classroom and created an atmosphere of secrecy between classrooms that signaled Plaintiff was not to share the child’s history—even with his new teachers.” - Lawsuit, page 15.

“Due to the sensitive nature of the events and the confidentiality owed to all minor children involved, Plaintiff could not publicly or informally disclose what had occurred—nor would it have been appropriate for any staff member to do so.” - Lawsuit, page 15.

2. Silence Instead of Investigation

Quotes about institutional silence, no meaningful investigation, and the refusal to let the truth reach parents.

“The severity of the bullying and its long-term developmental impact could only have been responsibly and legally addressed through a formally sanctioned investigation.” - Lawsuit, page 16.

"Kingsley failed to initiate any such investigation in response to Plaintiff’s October 31, 2022 protected report, her March 13, 2023 evidentiary chronology, or subsequent parent concerns.” - Lawsuit, page 18

“Instead, institutional silence and reputational protection were prioritized over the investigation and accountability the situation required.” - Lawsuit, page 16

“Rather than investigating, the school characterized Plaintiff’s protected activity as ‘insubordination’ and concealed the underlying misconduct.”

- Lawsuit, page 18

Plaintiff Anne MacMillan's Classroom

“Yet by the time of the March 8, 2023 meeting in which Farley reoffered Plaintiff a letter of appointment while simultaneously denying that bullying occurred at Kingsley, no such investigation had taken place.”

- Lawsuit, page 38

“Neither Plaintiff nor her teaching team had been interviewed about the safety concerns she had raised, relevant contemporaneous documents about the bullying had not been examined, and Plaintiff had been prevented from engaging in further communication with the victim child’s parents.” - Lawsuit, page 38

“Instead, Farley’s so-called ‘review’ focused narrowly on internal complaints seeded by Defendant Brennan and others, omitting the central issues of retaliation and student safety.” - Lawsuit, page 38

“In reality, then, the only investigation Kingsley expressly undertook was an investigation into the Plaintiff.” - Lawsuit, page 39

“Had the Board conducted such a review, it would have quickly uncovered the gravity of the original misconduct and the retaliatory measures taken against Plaintiff for attempting to ensure appropriate disclosure and care.” - Lawsuit, page 16.

3. Teachers Afraid to Speak

Quotes about teachers being warned not to use the word “bullying,” fear of losing appointments, and the chilling effect allegedly created when teachers who raised concerns were pushed out.

“The school’s administrative culture relied on implicit threats to job security to suppress concern about student mistreatment and to avoid compliance with state anti-bullying laws.” - Lawsuit, page 4

“Prior to reporting the misconduct to Human Resources, the Plaintiff was warned by multiple colleagues that if she said anything about the bullying, her appointment would not be renewed for the following school year.” - Lawsuit, page 4

“These colleagues shared that this pattern had occurred before: teachers who raised concerns about bullying were quietly pushed out.” - Lawsuit, page 4

“Other staff expressed fear that if they acknowledged what had happened, their jobs could be jeopardized.”

- Lawsuit, page 15

“Teachers are expressly obligated to report bullying and retaliation, and they cannot meet that obligation unless the school provides lawful reporting structures and protects them from reprisal.” - Lawsuit, page 5

“Kingsley had no anonymous reporting option, and faculty understood that reports of bullying could result in loss of reappointment.” - Lawsuit, page 17

“No such clear procedures were provided to the Plaintiff or her colleagues, leaving teachers without a safe or reliable means of reporting bullying or retaliation.”

- Lawsuit, page 17

“This institutional absence of required protections created a chilling effect that suppressed teachers’ willingness to report serious student mistreatment.” - Lawsuit, page 17

“The administration’s failure to implement these protections created a chilling effect throughout the school: colleagues advised the Plaintiff that even using the word ‘bullying’ when speaking to leadership could jeopardize her job—a warning grounded not in speculation, but in prior incidents where faculty had been quietly pushed out after raising similar concerns.” - Lawsuit, page 17

Plaintiff Anne MacMillan standing on Exeter Street in Boston beside a Kingsley advertisement featuring her teaching in March 2023. The complaint alleges that retaliation was already underway at this time. Only weeks later, MacMillan was terminated — in the middle of the school year.

“The facts of this case illustrate how independent schools, shielded by the overbearing power the schools have over the underrepresented teachers and a lack of external oversight, may retaliate against educators who report serious safety concerns.” - Lawsuit, page 6

4. The Independent School "Letter of Appointment" System

Quotes about annual letters of appointment, at-will employment, and how the complaint alleges this structure can be used to suppress teacher reports of bullying, retaliation, or student safety concerns.

“The school was able to carry out this retaliation under the guise of a ‘letter of appointment’ system—an at-will hiring structure still legal in Massachusetts for independent school teachers.” - Lawsuit, p. 4

“In February of 2023, he [Defendant Steve Farley] further exploited the school’s at-will appointment system by conditioning the Plaintiff’s continued employment on her alignment with this false narrative that no bullying occurs at Kingsley and her silence about the reported misconduct.”
- Lawsuit, p. 7

“Rather than presenting the letter as a standard procedural step, Farley framed it as a personal gesture of trust and alignment with school leadership.”
- Lawsuit, p. 37

Kingsley Montessori School Is Housed in the Old Exeter Theatre on Newbury Street in Boston

In 2024, amid public criticism, Kingsley purchased the building with help from a $25 million MassDevelopment tax-exempt bond.

“This inversion of responsibility not only facilitated the retaliatory revocation of her letter of appointment and then her termination, but also deprived the victimized student of the statutory protections to which the child was entitled under Massachusetts law.”
- Lawsuit, p. 42

“Upon learning that Defendant Farley had rescinded her letter of appointment for the 2023–2024 school year — a decision made in response to Plaintiff’s March 13, 2023 documentation — Plaintiff informed her colleagues of the decision and, on Friday, April 7, 2023, formally requested written documentation from administration outlining the alleged misconduct that justified such an action, documentation she had never received.” - Lawsuit, pp. 42-43

“In doing so, Plaintiff made it clear that she would not quietly accept retaliatory revocation of her appointment or allow the silence she knew administrators expected of her to be misinterpreted as agreement.”

- Lawsuit, p. 43

“The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Kingsley Montessori School to provide written employment contracts to its current and future faculty.”

- Lawsuit, p. 6

“This measure would ensure basic procedural fairness and prevent future ambiguity around teachers’ rights, roles, and protections.”
— Lawsuit, p. 6

5. Retaliation Against the Reporting Teacher

Quotes about the alleged shift from protecting the child to scrutinizing MacMillan, reframing documentation as insubordination, and termination.

“By distorting the circumstances of her departure and simultaneously denying her the opportunity to offer her students a proper goodbye, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to preserve her professional integrity, disrupted the relational trust she had carefully built with her students, and left a lasting impression inconsistent with her actual conduct and values.” - Lawsuit, p. 66

“Rather than recognizing the Plaintiff’s concern for student safety, the school responded with a campaign of retaliation designed to preserve the false appearance that no bullying had taken place—causing lasting damage to the Plaintiff’s career, professional reputation, and emotional well-being.” - Lawsuit, p. 2

“Rather than investigate the Plaintiff’s allegations, the school retaliated against the Plaintiff—launching a post hoc effort to justify her dismissal by conducting an unscheduled eight-day classroom observation in search of deficiencies, seeding false or negative perceptions to solicit corroborating complaints from other teachers and staff members and parents, misrepresenting her conduct, compiling false, ambiguous and unrelated incidents into her personnel file, and ultimately terminating her employment by reframing her subsequent documentation of the school’s inaction and retaliation as ‘insubordination.’” - Lawsuit, p. 3

“Having committed to the narrative that no sustained bullying existed at Kingsley, the school needed to undermine the credibility of the only teacher who had publicly challenged that claim.”
- Lawsuit, p. 4

“In anticipation of this, the Plaintiff carefully documented the harm she witnessed, the retaliation, and the lack of institutional response—only to have this documentation later reframed as ‘insubordination.’”
- Lawsuit, p. 4

“Instead of protecting the Plaintiff when she reported bullying, Kingsley retaliated against her through fabricated observations, mischaracterization of her conduct, and ultimately termination.”
- Lawsuit, pp. 18–1

“These omissions created the environment in which bullying could persist unchecked, retaliation could be carried out against educators who reported it, and the Plaintiff could be terminated for fulfilling her ethical and legal responsibilities as a teacher.”
- Lawsuit, p. 19

“Plaintiff made it clear that she would not quietly accept retaliatory revocation of her appointment or allow the silence she knew administrators expected of her to be misinterpreted as agreement.”
- Lawsuit, pp. 42–43

“The termination was sudden and final, offering Plaintiff no opportunity to return to the school to say goodbye to the young students to whom she had served as a trusted and stabilizing adult presence.”
Lawsuit, p. 43

“The decision not only silenced Plaintiff’s voice, but abruptly severed her relationship with the children she had worked to protect — further compounding the harm caused by Kingsley’s failure to respond to the original misconduct she reported.”
Lawsuit, p. 43

Plaintiff Anne MacMillan, AMS-Certified Montessorian

“Plaintiff’s termination was not based on job performance, but was a direct consequence of her efforts to advocate for a student’s safety and to report misconduct through appropriate internal channels.” - Lawsuit, p. 63

MacMillan had been promoted to Co-Lead Lower Elementary Teacher in September 2022. The complaint states that she reported severe bullying to Human Resources on October 31, 2022, only weeks after her promotion, and alleges she was retaliated against for making that report.

6. Pressure to Align with Administration

Quotes about alleged pressure on MacMillan to accept Kingsley’s position that no bullying occurred, remain silent about what she had reported, and align herself with the administration’s narrative.

“Rather than presenting the letter [of appointment] as a standard procedural step, Farley framed it as a personal gesture of trust and alignment with school leadership.” - Lawsuit, p. 37

“During the meeting, he categorically stated that no bullying happens at Kingsley — a claim he was making to a teacher who had witnessed bullying firsthand and made a formal report on October 31, 2022.”

- Lawsuit, p. 37

- Lawsuit, p. 38

“During this same March 8, 2023 meeting, Defendant Farley subtly recast the Plaintiff’s protected disclosures as evidence of insubordination.”

- Lawsuit, p. 38

“Without directly addressing her October 31, 2023 report or issuing an explicit ultimatum, he made clear that continued employment was contingent upon supporting the administration—which the Plaintiff reasonably understood as a directive not only to remain silent about the bullying and retaliation, but to accept responsibility for the institutional discomfort her reports had caused.” - Lawsuit, p. 38

“I understood that my bosses wanted me to remain silent about the actions they were taking.”
- MCAD First Amended Complaint, p. 3

“I did not agree that it was right or ethical to be silent or submissive under the circumstances.”
- MCAD First Amended Complaint, p. 2

“I believed I had uncovered and documented a pattern of silencing teachers so the school would not have to address bullying or other issues teachers brought to the attention of administrators.”

- MCAD First Amended Complaint, p. 3

MacMillan's Classroom, 2023

7. Public Record and Due Process

Quotes about the MCAD date error, no witness outreach, and dismissal without the factual record being tested.

“When schools control the construction of personnel records without oversight, and external bodies rely on those records without full inquiry, the result is a closed evidentiary loop that, however unintentionally, allows retaliatory narratives to persist unexamined.” - Lawsuit, p. 57

26 Exeter Street in Boston was originally a Spiritualist Temple. In 2024, amid public criticism, Kingsley purchased the building with help from a $25 million MassDevelopment tax-exempt bond.

MacMillan was a Lower Elementary teacher. Kingsley’s published Lower Elementary tuition for ages 6–9 is $45,285 for the 2026–2027 school year.

“In its disposition, the MCAD inaccurately stated: ‘Complainant alleges that she engaged in protected activity when on January 19, 2023, she emailed Human Resources Consultant Tyrell alleging…’ This is factually incorrect.” - Lawsuit, pp. 27–28

“The misstatement in the MCAD disposition is not minor: it effectively erases the Plaintiff’s good-faith effort to comply with legal and ethical obligations regarding student safety.” - Lawsuit, p. 28

“No explanation for the discrepancy has been provided, and in the context of the School’s considerable financial and legal resources, it underscores the degree to which institutional power can distort or obscure the evidentiary record…” Lawsuit, p. 28

The lawsuit alleges that the MCAD disposition misstated the date and nature of MacMillan’s protected activity by treating a January 19, 2023 email as the central protected report, rather than MacMillan’s October 31, 2022 verbal report to Human Resources about bullying and administrative inaction.

8. Why this Matters Beyond One Case

Quotes about safeguarding children, independent-school accountability, and the public interest.

“Silence and retaliation have no place in institutions entrusted with the care of children.”

- Lawsuit, p. 6

“That retaliation was made possible not only by administrative decisions but by structural gaps in Massachusetts law that allow independent schools to retaliate against whistleblowers without the safeguards that public school educators receive.” - Lawsuit, p. 3

“These gaps are especially dangerous in independent institutions that rely on tuition to operate because financial interests can override commitment to child protection.” - Lawsuit, p. 3

“The harm the Plaintiff suffered was not only personal and professional—it was made possible by Kingsley’s ongoing refusal to comply with the anti-bullying framework mandated by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71, Section 37O.” - Lawsuit, p. 2

“This systemic absence not only left children vulnerable to ongoing harm but also exposed the Plaintiff to unchecked retaliation after she attempted to fulfill her statutory and ethical obligations as an educator.”
- Lawsuit, pp. 2–3

“Within this culture, concerns about bullying or misconduct were treated not as issues to be addressed, but as threats to be managed.” - Lawsuit, p. 5

“The chilling effect of such retaliation—particularly in close-knit educational communities where professional reputation is paramount—threatens to suppress future reports of misconduct across the sector.” - Lawsuit, p. 6

“Such misconduct, if left unpunished, risks silencing future whistleblowers and undermines the enforcement of laws designed to protect children and educators alike.” - Lawsuit, pp. 72–73

“The purpose of this remedy is to ensure procedural fairness, promote transparency, and prevent future occurrences of retaliation.”
Lawsuit, p. 73

“While this Court cannot enact broad legislative reform, it can affirm a critical public interest: that safeguarding children must not come at the cost of destroying the careers of those who protect them.” - Lawsuit, p. 6

Continue exploring the case below. The case documents page provides public filings behind these excerpts, the Case Overview explains the lawsuit’s central allegations, and the Timeline shows how the events and legal process unfolded.