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.
Timeline:
MacMillan v. Kingsley Montessori School
This timeline summarizes key events described in the public filings in MacMillan v. Kingsley Montessori School. It is intended as a plain-language guide to the sequence of events. Readers who want the court filings themselves can review the Documents page.
1. 2021–2022 School Year
MacMillan is hired as an Assistant Teacher.
Anne MacMillan begins working at Kingsley Montessori School during the 2021–2022 school year.
MacMillan alleges that she witnesses severe bullying of a child.
According to MacMillan’s MCAD First Amended Complaint and later lawsuit, she witnessed a repetitive pattern of targeted bullying involving a vulnerable child. She alleges that Kingsley did not provide teachers with a safe or lawful way to report the bullying or administrative inaction.
2. 2022–2023 School Year
MacMillan is promoted to Lead Co-Teacher.
MacMillan is promoted for the 2022–2023 school year. The later lawsuit emphasizes this promotion because it occurred just before the alleged retaliation began.
Late September 2022 — Playground bullying incident occurs.
MacMillan alleges that the same child was again bullied by the same children on the playground, after some of the students had moved to a different level. She documents the incident.
October 31, 2022 — MacMillan reports bullying and administrative inaction to Human Resources.
MacMillan reports the bullying concerns and her supervisor’s alleged failure to respond appropriately to Human Resources. This report becomes the central protected activity in the lawsuit.
November 2022 — MacMillan alleges the school does not investigate.
MacMillan alleges that Kingsley did not respond to her report with a meaningful investigation. She contends that the school instead moved the child from her classroom without giving the parents accurate information, separating MacMillan from the child and family and ending her communication with them.
January 3, 2023 — MacMillan alleges retaliatory scrutiny begins.
MacMillan alleges that an unscheduled classroom observation and disciplinary process began shortly after her report to Human Resources. She contends this was part of a retaliatory process intended to pressure MacMillan to leave Kingsley and to create a basis not to renew her appointment.
January 13, 2023 — MacMillan is told she is in “misalignment” with Kingsley.
According to the lawsuit, MacMillan is called into a meeting and told she needs an improvement plan because of a perceived “misalignment” with the institution. MacMillan alleges she understood this as confirmation that retaliation was underway.
January 19, 2023 — MacMillan documents a hostile work environment.
MacMillan sends a written record of the hostile work environment she alleges she was experiencing. The lawsuit states that the MCAD later mischaracterized this January email as the first protected activity, even though MacMillan contends her protected report occurred on October 31, 2022.
February/March 2023 — MacMillan is offered a Letter of Appointment for the following school year.
MacMillan alleges that she was offered continued employment for the 2023–2024 school year through Kingsley’s Letter of Appointment system. According to the lawsuit, at the time the offer was discussed with the Head of School in March, the bullying and retaliation MacMillan had reported had still not been meaningfully investigated.
MacMillan contends that continued employment was presented in a way she understood as requiring her to align with Kingsley’s position that no bullying had occurred and indicating she must remain silent about the bullying and retaliation she had reported.
March 2023 — MacMillan is photographed beside a Kingsley advertisement featuring her teaching.
A photograph from this period shows MacMillan standing on Exeter Street beside a Kingsley advertisement featuring her work as a teacher. The complaint alleges that retaliation was already underway at this time.
March 13, 2023 — MacMillan submits written documentation of the bullying and alleged retaliation.
MacMillan submits a 25-page chronology that included screenshots of supporting email evidence. The lawsuit alleges this document addressed student safety, failure to investigate, interference with teacher-parent communication, and retaliation.
April 5, 2023 — Kingsley revokes MacMillan’s Letter of Appointment.
MacMillan alleges that Kingsley revoked her appointment for the following school year, shortly after she submitted her written documentation.
April 7, 2023 — MacMillan requests documentation and is terminated by courier.
MacMillan sends a formal request for documentation of the allegations being used against her. Later that day, she receives a letter of immediate termination by courier at her home. She is terminated in the middle of the school year.
April 13, 2023 — Board communication states there is “no need for an independent investigation.”
According to the lawsuit, after parents expressed concern and requested an independent investigation into MacMillan's termination and her allegations of bullying, Kingsley’s Board Chair sent a communication stating that there was “no need for an independent investigation.” MacMillan alleges this refusal to investigate was central to the harm that followed.
3. Administrative Proceedings
October 13, 2023 — MacMillan files an MCAD complaint.
MacMillan files a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination alleging discrimination and retaliation.
November 10, 2023 — MacMillan files a First Amended Complaint with MCAD.
MacMillan files a First Amended Complaint expressly describing the bullying report, the lack of reporting structures, the alleged retaliation, the Letter of Appointment issue, and her April 2023 termination.
April 1, 2024 — Initial MCAD investigation call occurs.
MacMillan states that during an initial investigation call, the primary MCAD investigator asked her to provide a list of witnesses so the investigator could make follow-up calls. MacMillan provided the requested witness list.
2024–2025 — MacMillan alleges the investigation stalls.
MacMillan alleges that after the initial investigation activity, no witness interviews or witness outreach occurred before the July 2025 disposition. In the Superior Court complaint, MacMillan states that the first investigator had asked her to compile a list of potential witnesses, but that “for over a year no further action was taken, and no interviews or witness outreach occurred.”
2024–2025 — MacMillan alleges the MCAD investigation stalls without witness outreach.
MacMillan alleges that after the initial investigation activity, no witness interviews or witness outreach occurred before the July 2025 disposition.
In the Superior Court complaint, MacMillan states that the first investigator had asked her to compile a list of potential witnesses, but that “for over a year no further action was taken, and no interviews or witness outreach occurred.”
Likewise, the MCAD disposition describes document review, an April 1, 2024 Investigative Conference, and Requests for Information, but does not state that any witnesses were called or interviewed.
March 11, 2025 — MCAD allows the complaint to be amended.
The MCAD issues an order amending the complaint to clarify and amplify MacMillan’s allegations based on the First Amended Complaint.
July 30, 2025 — MCAD dismisses the complaint for lack of probable cause.
The MCAD issues an Investigative Disposition dismissing MacMillan’s complaint for lack of probable cause. By this time, the original investigator was no longer assigned to the case, and both MacMillan and the disposition state that no investigative calls had taken place.
MacMillan contends that the disposition accepted Kingsley’s characterization of events without the investigation needed to test it, including by misstating the date of her protected activity as January 19, 2023 rather than October 31, 2022.
September 5, 2025 — MacMillan receives a Notice of Right to Sue.
MacMillan receives a Notice of Right to Sue, allowing her to bring her claims in court.
4. Superior Court Proceedings
October 7, 2025 — MacMillan files the Superior Court lawsuit.
MacMillan files MacMillan v. Kingsley Montessori School in Massachusetts Superior Court.
December 2025 — MacMillan seeks to protect confidential child and family information.
MacMillan files motions asking the Court to protect sensitive information involving non-party minor children and families. One confidential statement is impounded by Court order.
January 12, 2026 — Kingsley files a Motion to Dismiss.
Kingsley asks the Court to dismiss the case before it proceeds further.
January 12, 2026 — MacMillan opposes the Motion to Dismiss.
MacMillan asks the Court to deny Kingsley’s Motion to Dismiss and allow the case to proceed.
March 17, 2026 — The Court holds a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.
The linked court record includes the transcript of the hearing.
March 23, 2026 — The Court dismisses the case at the trial-court level.
The Court allows Kingsley’s Motion to Dismiss. MacMillan contends that the ruling creates a dangerous practical precedent for Massachusetts private schools because it may be used to argue that teachers can be terminated after reporting bullying or student safety concerns without meaningful legal accountability.
April 9, 2026 — MacMillan files a Notice of Appeal.
MacMillan files a Notice of Appeal, beginning the process of asking a higher court to review the trial-court dismissal and the legal questions it raises about private-school accountability.
What Is the MCAD?
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, or MCAD, is the state agency that enforces Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws. In employment cases, workers often must begin at the MCAD before they can bring certain discrimination or retaliation claims in court.
The MCAD describes its role as investigating complaints of discrimination in areas including employment, housing, public accommodations, education admissions, credit, and lending. It is supposed to operate as a neutral entity. If the agency finds that discrimination likely occurred, the case may proceed further within the agency process.
How the EEOC Fits In
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, is the federal agency that enforces federal workplace discrimination laws. In many employment cases, a complaint filed with a state agency like the MCAD may also be “dual-filed” with the EEOC when federal law may apply.
Dual filing does not usually mean two full investigations happen at the same time. It often means the charge is shared between the state and federal systems so the worker does not have to file the same charge twice.
In this case, the EEOC determination states that “substantial weight has been accorded to the findings of the state or local fair employment practice agency that investigated your charge.” For MacMillan, this matters because she contends that the MCAD investigation did not call witnesses or adequately test Kingsley’s version of events before those findings were given substantial weight.
Why the Administrative Process Matters
For many employment claims, the administrative process is the required doorway before a lawsuit. The employee files a complaint, the employer responds, documents are exchanged, and the agency decides whether there is enough evidence for the claim to move forward.
This stage matters because it can shape the record before the case ever reaches court. If witnesses are not called, if key documents are not tested, or if an employer’s version of events is accepted without enough investigation, the administrative record may fail to reflect what actually happened.
What Happens After the Agency Process?
If the administrative process ends without resolving the case, the worker may receive a Notice of Right to Sue. That notice allows the worker to bring the claims into court.
If the administrative process ends without resolving the case, the worker may receive a Notice of Right to Sue. That notice allows the worker to bring the claims into court.
Why This Matters in School Safety Cases
In school cases, the stakes are not only about employment. Teachers may be the adults closest to children and most likely to witness bullying, retaliation, or unsafe dynamics inside classrooms.
If a teacher reports harm and the school denies it, an outside investigation may be the only way to test what happened. If the administrative process does not call witnesses or examine the school’s version of events closely, then children, families, and reporting teachers can all be left without meaningful accountability.
Bullying Accountability
Child Safety • Teacher Protection • Institutional Responsibility
© 2026 Bullying Accountability. All rights reserved.