COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

MARJORTE MONROE,
Complainant

)
)

v.

)

MCAD DOCKET NO.:

STONELEIGH-BURNHAM SCHOOL, )
Respondent
)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Kindly note our appearance on behalf ofcomplainant Marjorie Monroe.

Respectfully submitted,
1`

..
~

~

'
'

;rf

' +

~~

Dahlia C. Rudaysky, Esq.
BBO #433300
Messing, Rudaysky & Weliky, P.C.
50 Congress Street, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02109
(617)742-0004

 CHARGE OF. DISCRIMINATION . CHARGE NUMBER
Miami-Meddth mum al 1:74:36. Fm 0395302419 

I: EEoc tea-zoo? -- 0237:}

. Halsachusetts Commission Against Biactiminntinn .M EEOC

ewe-lama. 

Mn. Mn. M131 cm:
11.5. Marjorie ("flarje") Home .

a .
5min ADDRESS suTE AND can an; 0; 3mm

NAMED IS ms maven. anon omnuzmon Emovmsm AGENCV, communes, STAYE on we" envanMsm-
ABM mm AsAmsr NE firm Phat! 531 mm)

 

 

     
  
  
    

 

 

 

NAME NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. MEMBERS YELEPHONE [Include An- Codg] 
Stoneleigh--Bumham School Over 20 "3--77-5427"
na. 'eflai'flefl'." arm" JSOWTY
Franklin
""45 Paul Bassett TELEPHONE mum mm, my
clo Stane1=igh--Butnhm Schnol I Attachment to MC,AD Complaint of Maxjorie Monroe
1.

My name is Marjorie("Marje") Monroe. Since July 1,2002,I have worked as a
dean at the Stoneleigh Burnham School("the School"), a-boarding/day school.
for girls in grades 7-12 located in Greenfield, Massachusetts.

2.

I hold a bachelor's degree in English from Wittenberg University in Springfield,
Ohio and a Master of Social Work degree from Loyola University in Chicago,
Illinois. I have ttiventy years of experience of counseling, teaching and leadership
positions in independent schools. For fifteen of those years,I have served in
administrative roles. In addition, Y have ttivenfy-two years of clinical experience
as a social worker, most of which has involved school counseling responsibilities.

3.

My initial position at the School was Dean of Residen#ial Life. I served in that
position for four school years(20Q2-2003 through 2Q05-2006). In April 2006,I
declined the School's offer of a further contract renewal, because I differed with
the then-Head on the handling of a student discipline matter. However,the
School's Board of Trustees replaced the Head and did not renew the employment
of the incumbent Dean of Students. I3r. Paul Bassett, a teacher whom the Board
had appointed to a three-year term as Acting Head,ulvifed xne to become Dean
of Students. I accepted the position, which began in the summer of 2Q06.

4.

During my years as the School's Dean of Residential Life and my first year
(school year 2t}06-2Q0~ as Dean of Students,I developed strong posztive
relationships and had excellent rapport with all sectors of the school community,
including students,fatuity,staff, administrators, parents,and members of the
Board of Trustees. Throughout my employment at the School I received
consistent positive feedback about my performance as Dean of Residential Life
and later, Dean o£ Students.

5.

My complaint arises from retaliation I experienced during this past school year
(2007-2(?08) as a result of my participation in the investigation of a student's
report of sexual harassment. During the fall of 2Q07, prior to that incident and
the investigation thatfollowed,I had continued to enjoy uniformly positive
relationships within the School. community,including with Dr. Bassett, the
Acting Head.

6.

On November 15,2007,two members of the School's Board of Trustees,Shayna
Appel and Richard Hubbard,requested that I speak with a postgraduate
student who had reporked an incident of unwelcome physical/sexual contact
between her and the Acting Head of School while she was a guest at his home.
Before the Board members made this request,I had no knowledge of the
allegations. Apparently the Board 11ad received a report of the allegafiions from a
parent who serves on the Board, who in turn had heard ofthe matter from his

 daughter, a friend of the alleged victim.
7.

On November 16,2007,I met with the student who had made the allegations
against the Acting Head. Also present was a staff member in whom the student
had confided and Robin Johnson,the School's Director of Development, who
was the "Administrator on Duty" that day. In our presence,the student
reluctantly and tearfully fiold us what she had previously xeported to her friends,
and had been reported to the Board. When the student asked if she would have
to face Dr. Bassett,I assured her that if her allegations were upheld,she would
not have to d'o sa: Following the meeting with the student,I reported what she
had said to tvvo Board members,Shayna Appel and Sally Mixsell. Both Appel
and Mixsell later commended me on how I had handled the student interview.

8.

The Board thereafter hired an outside lawyer to conduct an investigation into the
student's allegations. T'he results of the investigation, which lasted between two
and three weeks,were "inconclusive," according to Ms. Mixsell, who so reported
in an administrative meeting.

9.

Beginning on November 15,2007,the Acting Head was placed on a leave of
absence. During December, Ms. Mixse11 told me Dr. Bassett would be leaving
January 1, 2008. However,that later changed. The administrative team met(at
the request of Ms. Mixsell~ and recommended that the Acting Head be permitted
to remain in that role until the end of the school year,for the sake of continuity.
Upon information and belief, the Board adopted thaf recommendation,and told
Dr. Bassett he could return to connplefie his service as Acting Head for the 20072008 school yeax. The Board also appointed Sally Mixsell as the Head-designate,
who was to begin service as Head of School in the summer of 2008. I?uring
January, Ms. Mixsell asked me to return as Dean of Students aid to also assume
the duties of the Dean of Residential Life in school year 20{}8-2Q09.

10.

Dr. Bassett returned from his leave on January 8,200$. That day he wrote an
email to faculty and staff announcing that he had been on personal leave taking
care of his sick wife. This statement v~ras known to be untrue by faculty, who had
seen hip wife dropping off his daughtear daily at school. I phoned Ms. Mixsell
expressing concern that the faculty were very angry about the email.
Subsequently, upon information and belief, Ms. Mixsell talked to Dr. Bassett.
That night in a meeting,he told the faculty that allegations(which he did not
specify} had been made against him,which was why he had been away from
School,but that after investigation they had been determined to be "unfounded"
(rather than "inclusive" as had been told to the adminisfrative conunittee).

11,

~n January 9,2008, Ms. Mixsell presided (as filie Board's representative) over a
meeting of the School's administrative team. At that meeting,without warning,
Dr. Bassett announced that he would now tell "his side of the story;' and

 launched into an angry and abusive tirade against me. He yelled and pointed his
finger at me accusingly, and stated fihat he wasleaving the School because I was
being allowed to work at the School and get away with lying;.that I had betrayed
him and his career, and that I was waging a campaign to get rid of him,
including by manipulating the investigation against him.. These accusations
against me were untrue. During the tirade, Dr. Bassett used crude language. I
tried to leave several times but colleagues urged me to stay. Other members of
the administrative team agreed wiith Dr. Bassett's view that T had been critical of
hizn. Ms. Mixsell mouthed the words "I'm.sorry - I had no idea he'd do this" to
me from across the room,but said nothing out loud and permitted Dr. Bassett to
have his say.
12.

After the meeting,I was shaken and upset. Ms. Mrxsell privately apologized to
me in the presence of another staff member.

13.

Dr. Bassett continued to be my supervisor. On several occasions he yelled at me
in private meetings,and at least one occasion he used profanity. Although I
requested from Ms. Mixsell that the School devise an alternative reporting path,
this was not done.

14,

The day after Dx. Bassett's outburst,I began to hear that faculty were gossiping
in the dining hall about me and the unspecified "allegations' against Dr. Bassett,
and repeating that I was to blame for his departure.

15.

Soon thereafter, during January and February,I began to experience (for the first
time),rude,shunning treatmentfrom members of the faculty and staff. People
were curt with me,rude in meetings and publicly hostile. My attempts at coxdial
conversation were met with silence and icy stares. ~n several occasions,I would
sit down(with my six-year-old son). at a table in the dinging hall, and the faculty
or staff members sitting there would get ~p and leave. My son asked me why
people were being so mean.

16.

Around this time,some faculty and staff began to complain vociferously about
how I was doing my job, even though I had not changed my approach and there
had not been prior serious complaints. During February and March,I had a
number of conversations with Ms. Mixsell iri which I told her that I was being
scapegoated and blamed fox Dr. Bassett's departure. I urged her repeatedly to
explain to the faculty and staff that I had acted at the request of the Board and
had not sought Dr. Bassett's departure. Ms. Mixsell and the Board did nothing.

17.

In late February,2008 Ms. Mixsell and I met to discuss the complaints that had
been made about my performance. I agreed to work to improve in the areas that
had been raised,such as communications and consistency, but I pointed out that
the complaints had begun only after Dr.$assett had accused me of driving him

 from the School, and that no one in authority had refuted his lies about my role
in the investigation or in his departure:
18.

On March 5, 2008, at a faculty meeting that Ms. Mixsell attended,the faculty
voted no
-confidence in me. To my knowledge,such a vote is unprecedented at
fine School. lVls. Mixsell told the meeting that she had offered me a job for the
next fall. She did not address Dr. Bassett's allegations aboutme ox explain my
role in fhe sexual harassment investigation.

19.

After hearing of the no
-confidence vote, I met with Ms. Mixsell. In the presence
of the School Counselor, M~. Mixsell told me she was"awed by your ability to
come to work every day" in the face of the hosiale environment I was facing. She
said "if I were you I'd have left already," or words to that effect.

20.

On I~llarch 6,2008 I requested another meeting with Ms. Mixsell. We met and
discussed the need for me tQ "build bridges" with some of.the faculty,to which I
agreed, and Ms. Mixsell reiterated that I was"her Dean of Students" for the next
fall.

21,

On March 9,2008 I received an email that Ms. Mixsell had sent the previous day.
In the email she indicated that she had had new thoughts about-any employment,
and wanted to hold back on issuing my contract until mid-May. In khe
meantime,.she.wanted xne to work on certain areas that faculty and staff had
complained about.

22.

On Mach 20, 2(}08 I sent Ms. Mixsell a response to her email. I promised to work
on the areas she had listed. I also pointed outthat the complaints had surfaced
only after Dr. Bassett's tixade against ixie, and that nobody in au#hority had yet
corrected his false statements.

23.

The following week,I met again with Ms. Mixsell to discuss my March 20,2008
letter. The meeting was productive: I reiterated that I would work seriously on
the issues that had been raised regarding communication and clarity about
student discipline, and Ms. MixseXi reiterated hey intention of issuing me a
contract for the fall.

24.

On April 4,2008 I wrote a second letter to Ms. Mixsell. I thanked her fox her
support and her promise to send me a contract, but asked her(again)to please
clarify to the faculty and staff what my role had been in the investigation. I
explained (again)t~.e hostility with which I had had to contend,and how this
was taking a severe emotional toll on me and my son. I felt the need to write
since x~.othing had been done to stop the incivility, intolerance and cruelty of
some of the faculty and staff members,even though Ms. Mixsell had
acknowledged the difficulty of my situation a month earlier. Instead, the

 situation had been allowed to fester.
25.

On Aparil 7,2008 Ms. Mixsell finally(but unsuccessfully)tried to address the
hostile environment by speaking about it at an administrators' meeting(which I
did not attend). I understand that Ms. Mixsell told the meeting that I had not
been the source of the allegations against Dr. Bassett, and that people should
treat each other with civility. However,she did not directly address and refute
Dr. Bassett's false statements about me,nor explain my role in the investigation.
I understand thatfrom that point on,the meeting deteriorated into an "open
season" on m.e and my reputation, to the point that at least one person walked
out in protest. Since then, at least two members of the administration have
resigned in part because of how I have been treated.

26.

Oxt Apri18,2008 I attended a facurty meeting. When I spoke up with respect to
nominating students for a School award,so~cne faculty members rolled their eyes,
while others markedly turned away. I fel# mocked and humiliated, and did not
feel I could sustain any further abusive treatment. I consulted my physician,
who advised me to take a medical Ieave of absence.

27.

On April 9,2008 I began a medical Ieave of absence. My doctor has extended my
leave and I do nod expect to be able to return to the School before June 30,2008,
when my contract ends.

28.

To my knowledge, neither Ms. Mixsell nor any other Board member has ever
addressed the faculty or staff to clarify how I came to play a role in the sexual
harassment investigation,nor have they refitted Dr. Bassett's false claims that I
waged a campaign to procure his departure and am the reason he is leaving the
School.

29.

Despite Ms. Mixsell's representations tome that Iwould be sent a contract most
recently she told me so when we met on or about March 25, 2008), no contract
was ever sent.

3d.

On April 16,2008, my lawyer wrote to the president of the Board to request,on
my behalf, that the hostile environment be addressed,so that I could return to
School and be productive in my role as Dean. The Board responded through
counsel on May 8,2008. The School's counsel failed to address the hostile
environment,and instead stated that my contract was being withheld because of
performance issues. Although I was on medical leave, the letter asked that I
meet with the lawyer and School officials fio discuss my performance.

31.

Qz1 June 5,200$ the School informed me through counsel that my contract would
not be renewed, allegedly because I had not responded appropriately to Ms.
Mixsell's concerns in her March 8, 2008 email, and had not set an appointment as

 requested in the counsel's letter. This is a pretext, given my productive late
March meeting with Ms. Mixsell on her concerns, Ms. Mixsell's reiteration
following the ].ate March meeting of her intention to send me a contract, and the
fact that I rennain on medical leave.
32.

I believe that the School's actions and failures to act described above constitute
unlawful. retaliation against me for my participation in the School's internal.
investigation of the sexual harassment complaint against Dr. Bassett, my
opposition to sexual harassment, my assisting the alleged victim of the
harassment zn making her claim, and my request that fhe School address the
resulting hostile environment, all in violation of Mass. G.L. c.251B §~ 4(4) and
4(4A)and Mass. G.L. c. 151C ~ 2(b). I believe the retaliation has taken two forms:
a) withholding of zxiy contract for the 2008-2009 school year for pretexual
reasons, and ultimately termination of my employment; and b)my subjection to
a hostile environment arising from faculty and staff retaliation, and failure by the
School to take appropriate measures to stop others from perpetuating the
retaliatory, hostile environment of#er repeated appeals from me and ethers #a the
Board and the Head-designate to step in.

33.

As a consequence of the School's actions and failures to act, I have lost my job
and wi111ose my salary and the benefits of employment,including housing and
health insurance for me and my son. I will likely be unemployed,since the
School led me to believe until the late spring that a contract would be
forthcoming,so that I have been unable to find replacement employment fox the
fall semester. I have incurred other expenses,including moving costs. I have
su#fered severe emotional distress.I have incurred attorneys'fees and expense.
The School is liable for all my losses.

34.

I believe Paul Bassett is also responsible for the retaliation I have suf#eyed. By
lying about me because of the role I played in the School's internal investigation
of the student's allegations, and because T assisted the student in making a
complaint and otherwise opposed sexual harassment, he aided, abetted and
incited the retaliation agair►st me,and interfered with rxiy employment, all in
violation of Mass. G.L. c.151B §~ 4(4A)and 4(5). Dr. Bassett and the School are
jointly and severally liable for all of xny losses.

Signed under the penalties of perjury this ~ ~ day of June,2008.

Marjorie

oe

 tts
lth of Massachuse
The ConUmonwea nst Discrimination
103
Commission Agai
ringfield, MA 01
Sp
0,
22
.
m
R
,
et
436 Dwight Stre ) 739-2145 Fax: (413) 7$q•1056
Phone: (4~3
Date; ~o~ . 3`

~, aoa~ .

Esquire
y,P.C,
Claire Thompson,
Pillsbury &Murph
e,
ac
ll
Wa
Doherty,
One Monat~ch Place
1414 Main Street01144
Springfield, MA

y, Esquire
Dalilia C,I~udaysk
& WeJiky,P,C.
ky
ys
da
Ru
g,
Messin
Suite 1000
,
et
re
St
50 Congress
9
Boston, MA 0210

ul Bassett
-Burnham School,Pa
gh
ei
eE
on
St
v.
oe
RE: Marjorie Monr
2264
2
Number; 08SEM0mb
er: 16G2008-0227
MCA.P Aoeket de
Nu
ge
ar
Ch
l
ra
Fe
)D
IC
/I
EEOC
SE I~INDING
PROBABLE CATJ
ferenced complaint.
l;
tions in the above-re
ga
le
al
Dear Parties/Counse
e
th
it
ed
cr
d probable cause to
fied that I have foun
You are hexeby nosptiosition is enclosed,
wealth's
ce with the Common
an
li
mp
A copy of the di
co
e
rc
fo
en
ed to attend a
by to
d counsel are requir issioner
.L,c,151B, § 5)to
an
(G
e
es
ut
ti
at
ar
st
by
d,
d
en
ge
is
ar
ch
:00 a.m. with Comm
blic hearing. To th
The Commission is
without resort to a pu ce on Frida~uar~22,2010, at 10
ws
la
on
ti
na
mi
ri
sc
anti-di
sion's offz
ence at the Commis
conciliation confer
•
officer
Ebel or his designee
era present. Thefer an
se
ca
e
th
tle
set
to
y
of
to
orit
persons with auth
se and authorized
impossible unless
familiar with the ca
or
be
ult
st
fic
mu
dif
ty
ti
is
en
on
r
ti
othe
Concilia
ar for a business ox
10 days
designated to appe
,
sel not less thou
nt
un
me
co
le
's
tt
nt
se
de
e
on
at
sp
ri
t
op
Re
as
appr
nt to
at le five days
oposal ofsettlemepreliminary settlement disousszons
pr
n
te
it
wr
a
nd
se
ld
sel should
quire that parties ho
Complainant's coun
meeting, We also re
d
le
du
he
sc
e
th
re
befo
may result in . on
on date.
tend the sessionby
at
to
e
Commissi
ur
il
before the conciliati
fa
n,
io
incurred the the case.
iation sess
s
il
st
nc
ca
co
r
e
fo
s
th
on
at
ti
s
nc
ux
of
d one to two ho aring and/or impositiob of sa tend may rasuFt zn dismissaI
Be prepared to spen
ion to public he e, Complainant's failure to at
at
ic
if
rt
ce
e
e opposing
immediat
y. Furthermor
rt
pa
lc with notice to th
er
ng
Cl
on
ti
ia
il
nc
dr
and the opposi
Co
is ad ess,
to tite
rol Murchison at th
on written motiones
Ca
up
to
pt
ce
ce
en
ex
d
nd
te
po
an
gr
rr
ll be
e, Please direct co
No continuances wi
owing of good caus
sh
a
on
up
d
an
y
rt
pa
Very truly yours,

an Ebe
sioner
Investigating Commis

Page
64,Pxobable Cause

lumber 08SEM022

Cover Letter

1

 Il~tVESTIGATIVE DISPOSITION

Case Name.
MCAD Docket No,;
EEOC Docket No.:
No, of Employees;
Investigator;
Recommendation;

Marjorie Monroe v. Stonelezgh-Burnham School, Paul
Barrett
08SEM02264
16C-2008-02272
20 +
Maryann Brunton, Compliance Officer
Probable Cause

Introduction
On July 28, 2008, Complainant filed a chaxge alleging that Respondents
discriminated against her by subjecting hex to unlawful retaliation, a hostile work
environment, and terminating her employment. Complainant charged that individually
named Respondent Paul Bassett retaliated against her, aided;abetted, and incited
retaliation against her. Complainant asserted that Respondents' conduct was in violation of
M.G.L. Chapter 151B, s4 (4),(4A),(5), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1.964, as
amended.
Com~lain.ant's Allegations
Complainant began working for Respondent Stoneleigh-B~.unham School
(hereinafter "Stoneleigh") on July 1, 2002. Her initial position was dean of residential life.
Respondent Paul Bassett, who was the acting head of school, invited Complainant to
become the dean of students in the S~tmz~~ex of 2006, Complainant held that position until
her tei~nination.
On. November 15, 2007,two members of Respondent Stoneleigh Board of Tzustees
requested that, Complainant interview apost-gYaduate student who reported that
Respondent Bassett sexually harassed hex. Complainant and others met with the former
student on November 16, 2007. The student stated to Complainant that Respondent
Bassett sexually harassed hex. Complainant reported what the student said to two Board
members.
The Board of Trustees then hired an outside lawyer to conduct an investigation into
the sexual harassment allegations. The results ofthe investigation were "inconclusive,"
Respondent Bassett was placed on a leave of absence from November 15, 2007
until January 8, 2008. Upon his return, hewrote in an e-mail to faculty and staff that he
tools a personal leave and cared for his sick wife. Complainant contacted the HeadMarjorie Monroe v, Stoneleigh-Burnham School, Paul Bassett

1
08SEM02264

 Designate, Ms..Sally Mixsell, and stated that faculty members were angry about the e-mail
because it was untrue ar~d they saw Respondent Bassett's wife dropping offtheir daughter
at school.
Upon Complainant's information and belief, Ms, Mixsell discussed the matter with
Respondent Bassett. That evening, durzng a meeting, Respondent Bassett told the faculty
that allegations had been made against him, and that was why he had been away from
school. Respondent Bassett said the investigation showed the allegations were
"unfounded"(rathex than inconclusive, as told to the administrative committee),
During.a January 9, 2'008 meeting, Respondent Bassett. announced he would tell his
"side of the stoxy." He launched into an angry and abusive tirade against Complainant, He
yelled and pointed his finger at Complainant accusingly, and stated he was leaving the
school because Complainant was allowed to work at the school and get away with lying.
He said Complainant had betrayed him and his caxeer, ar~.d she was Waging a campaign to
get rid of laim, including manipulating the investigation against him. His allegations were
untrue. During lus tirade, Respondent used crude language, Complainant attempted to
leave but her colleagues urged her to stay, Other members ofthe administrative team
agreed with Respondent Bassett's view that Complainant was critical of him. Ms. Mixsell
mouthed the words,"I'm sorry—I had no idea he'd do this" to Complainant from across
the room, but said nothing out Ioud and permitted Respondent Bassett to have his say.
After the meeting, Complainant was shaken and upset. Ms. Mixsell apologized to hex in
the presence of another staff member.
Respondent Bassett continued to supezvise Complainant. On several occasions ha
yelled at hex in private meetings and on at least one occasion he used profanity toward her,
Although Complainant asked Ms. Mixsell if she could xeport to another supervisor, this
was not done.
The day after Respondent Bassett's outburst, Complainant began to hear faculty
were gossiping in the dining hall about her and the allegations against Respondent Bassett,
repeating that Complement was to blame for his depaxture.
Tn January and February 2008, Complainant experienced faculty and staff treating
her rudely and shunning her. People were curt with her, rude in meetings, and publicly
hostile toward her, Complainant's attempts at cordial conversations were met with icy
stares and silence. On several occasions, Complainant sat down with her six-year-.old son
at a table in the dining hall and faculty or staff members sitting there got up and left.
Complainant's son asked her why people ware being so mean.
Around this time, some faculty and staff began to complain vociferously about how
Complainant was performing hex job, although she had not changed her approach and there
had not been prior serious complaints. Durzng February and March 2008, Complainant
had numerous conversations with Ms. Mixsell in which she informed Ms. Mixsell that she
Marjorie Monroe v, Stoneleigh-Burnham School, Paul Bassett

2
08SEM02264

 was being scapegoated and blamed for Respondent Bassett's departure. Complainant
urged her repeatedly to explain to the faculty and staffthat she had acted at the request of
the Board of Trustees and had not sought Respondent Bassett's departure. Ms, Mixsell
and the Board did nothing,
ail late February 2008, Ms, Mixsell and Complainant met to discuss the complaints
that had been made about Complainant's performance. Complainant agreed to work to
zmprove in the areas that had been xaised, such as communications and consistency.
However, Corr~plainant pointed out that the complaints had begun only after Respondent
had
Bassett had accused her of driving him from the school, and that nobody in authority
refuted his lies about her role in the investigation ar his departure,
On March S, 2008, at a faculty meeting that Ms, Mixsell attended, the faculty voted
no-confidence in Complainant. To Complainant's lcnowladge, such a vote was
or, Ms.
unprecedented at Respondent Stoneleigh. Later, in the presence of a school counsel
and if she
Mixsell stated she was awed by Complainant's ability to come to work evexyday
were Complainant, she would have left already.
On March 6, 2008, Ms. Mixsell and Complainant met and discussed Complainant's
was
need to "build bridges" with some faculty. Ms. Mixsell reiterated that Complainant
her dean of students for the next fall.
she
On March 9, 2008, Complainant received an e-mail from Ms. Mixsell stating
on
back
had new thoughts about Complainant's employment, and she wanted to hold
wanted
issuing Complainant's'employmant contract until mid-May, In the meantime, she
Complainant to work on certain areas that faculty and staff had complained about.
On March 20, 2008., Complainant responded to the e-mail. Complainant promised
d
to work on the areas she listed, Complainant pointed out that the complaints had suxface
yet
had
ty
only after Respondent Bassett's tirade against her and nobody in authori
coxreeted his false statements.
The following week Complainant and Ms, Mixsell again mefi. Complainant
n and
reiterated she would work on the issues that had been raised regarding comlxiunicatio
clarity about shident discipline, and Ms. Mixsell reiterated her intention of issuing
Complainant a contract for the fall.
On April 4, 2008, Complainant wrote a second letter to Ms. Mixsell, asking her to
claiify to the faculty and staff what Complainant's role was in the investigation.
taking a
Complainant again explained the hostility she had to contend with, and how it was
severe emotional to11 on Complainant and hex son.
On April 7, 2008, Ms. Mi~sell tried to address the hostile environment by speaking
told
about it at an administrators' meeting. Complainant's understanding was Ms, Mixsell
Marjorie Monroe v, Stoneleigh-Burnham School, Paul Bassett

3
08SEM02264

 the adrr~uustratoxs that Complainant had not bean the source ofthe allegations against
Respondent Bassett and people should treat each other with civility, She did not directly
addz~ess and refine Respondent Bassett's false statements about Complainant, or explain
Coxr~plainant's role.in the investigation, Complainant's understanding was that the
meeting then deteriorated into an "open season" against Complainant and hex reputation.
On April 8, 2008, Complainant attended a faculty meeting, When she spolce up
some faculty members rolled their ayes and others markedly turned away, Complainant
felt mocked and humiliated and sought medical treatment. Complainant began a medical
leave of absence beginning on April 8, 2008. She did not expect to return to work before
her contract ended on June 30, 2008.
Complainant's attorxiey wrote to the president ofthe Board of Trustees on April 16,
2008, and requested that Respondent Stoneleigh.address the hostile environment, The
Board responded on May 8, 2008,through counsel, and failed to address the hostile work
environment.
On June 5, 2008, Respondent Stoneleigh informed Complainant through her
counsel that hex contract would not be renewed, allegedly because Complainant had not
responded appropriately to Ms. Mixsell's concerns set forth in her March 8, 2008, letter to
Complainant, and because Complainant had not set an appointment as requested in the
attorney's letter. Complainant asserts Respondent Stoneleigh's reasons for t11e nonrenewal of her contxact were pxetextual for unlawful retaliation, Complainant met with
Ms. Mixsell late in Masch 2008, Following the meeting Ms. Mixsell reiterated that she
intended to send Complainant an employment contract. Complainant was also on medical
leave.
Coix~plainant asserts Respondent Stoneleigh's actions constitute unlawful
retaliation fox participating in an investigation of sexual harassment, for assisting the
alleged victim. of sexual harassment, and an retaliation to her request that Respondent
Stoneleigh address the hostile work envzxonment and retaliation Respondents subjected
Complainant to.
Complainant alleges Respondent Bassett retaliated against her because ofthe role
she had in the internal investigation, and because she assisted a student in making a
complaint and otherwise opposed sexual harassnnent. Complainant further charges that
Respondent Bassett aided, abetted, axed incited others to retaliate against Complainant.
Respondents' Position
Respondent Stoneleigh Burnk~am School is an independent college preparatory day
and residential school for girls in grades seven through twelve. Respondent Stoneleigh is
located in Greenfield, Massachusetts, Complainant was employed as either dean of

Marjorie Mom~oe v. Stonaleigh-BuLnham School, Paul Bassett
08SEM02264

 and ending in
residential life or dean. of students beginning in the 2002-2003 school year
two yeaxs.
for
l
June 2008, Respondent Bassett served in the capacity of head of schoo
In the Fall of 2007,two administrators reported to Respondent Bassett that
t denigrated
Complainant had engaged them in a conversation wherein Complainan
stated she thought
t
ainan
,
Respondent Bassett's effectiveness as the head of school Compl
he should be removed from the position,
about
On or about October 2007, subsequent to Complaina~.t's negative comrzlents
Bassett touched her
Respondent Bassett, a residential student claimed that Respondent
ainant conduct
inappropriately in his home. The Board of Trustees suggested that Compl
the Board.
the investigation into the allegations along with a witness designated by
was 2znavailable,
one
g
Complainant rejected the Board's proposed witnesses, falsely sayin
and instead selected an individual who was hex close friend,
s while the,
Respondent Stoneleigh asked Respondent Bassett to stay off campu
ey to conduct an
investigation occurred. Respondent Stoneleigh also hired an attorn
duals, includuag the
investigatian.:4fter two weeks of interviews with numerous indivi
support the
student who complained, Complainant, and the individuals who would
tions were unfounded,
student's allegations, the lured attorney concluded that the allega
worry because
The attorney also stated that Complainant told the student not to
eigh anymore.
Respondent Bassett would not be working at Respondent Stonel
one person was
Respondezat Bassett learned about Complainant's false claim that
t advocated to
unavailable to be a witness in the investigation and that Complainan
terminate his employment,
, no corrective
Consistent with Respondent Stoneleigh's non-harassment policy
rs, none ofthe employees
action was necessary. With the exception of a few administrato
t's role in the
and faculty members were aware ofthe investigation or Complainan
in early December 2007.
investigation, Respondent Staneleigh concluded its investigation
some point during
Respondent Bassett returned to work on December 5, 2007. At
understanding of her
a meeiing, he expressed anger toward Complainant based on his
her dea:iigrating statements
attempts to manipulate the participants in the investigation and
ized to Complainant for
about his effectiveness as the head of school. He quicl~ly apolog
losing his temper and no longer spoke about the investigation.
ainant a new
On January 4, 2008, Head of School Elect Ms. Mixsell offered Compl
ainant's colleagues
position of dean of students for the 2008-2009 school year. Compl
learned ofthe job offer and expressed their displeasure.
On or about January 11, 2008, Ms, Mixsell and Respondent Bassett began
Complainant's
receiving verbal and written expressions of frustration and concern that
Marjorie Monroe v, Stoneleigh-Burnham School, Paul Bassett
08SEM02264

 contxact was being renewed for the following school year, and her responsibilities were
being increased, Several individuals wrote letters of complaint about Complainant.
On February 4, and Fabruaxy 5, 2008, Ms. Mixsell met with Complainant to discuss
the faculty outpouring of dissatisfaction with her performance. Complainant
acknowledged her organizational skills were not her strong suit, and agreed to attempt to
improve in this area. Ms. Mixsell encouraged Corr~plainant to usa the assistant to the
deans. She also offered to assist Complainant in devising strategies to work more
effectively with faculty and improve the perceptions that faculty had of her job
perfoi~nance,
Ms. Mixsell and Complainant met again in late February 2008, and early March
2008, to discuss criticisms received by faculty and staff. On March 8, 2008, Ms. Mixsell
siul7z~~arized the eoncexns regarding Complainant's work performance in a letter, Ms.
Mixsell wrote Complainant lacked responsiveness and commuxucation with faculty who
reported disciplinary infractions, .She wrote that Complainant inconsistently implemented
when
the code of conduct in regard to students and was. subjective and emotionally charged
ly
addressing students' concerns and applying fine code of conduct. Complainant frequent
she
and
faculty,
and
canceled her psychology classes, she lacked availability to students
was extremely sensitive and lacked acceptance of constructive criticism to improve hex
performance. Ms. Mixsell wrote to Complainant on March 8, 2008, that Respondent
Stoneleigh would not offer hex a position for the 2008-2009 school year unless she
significantly improved her job performance,
Complainant responded to Ms. Mi~sell on March 20, 200&, aald again on April 4,
200.8, by blaming Respondent Bassett and members of the faculty for her job deficiencies.
She told Ms, M~sell during the week of Maxch 24, 2008,that she had begun a new job
in an
search in case her contract was not renewed, She complained she could not fiinction
her job,
environment where faculty expressed a Lack of.confidence in her ability to perform
on.
She stated that no progress was made in helping to restore her reputati
Complainant failed to make amends with the faculty and address their concerns as
outlined in Ms. Mixsell's March 8, 2008, letter. 'This resulted in the non-renewal of her
that
employment contract. On June S, 2008, Respondent Stoneleigh notified Complainant
not
hez contract would not be renewed for the 2008-2009 school year, The reasons for
renewing Complainanf's contract were outlined in Ms. Mixsell's March 8, 2008 letter to
Complainant. Respondent states it was also because Complainant's failed to respond
appropriately and constructively to Ms. Mixsell's suggestions to meet with faculty and
improve hex job performance.
Complainant never submitted a report or request for a medical leave authored by
any physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist attesting to her alleged inability to perform the
essential functions of the job. Complainant called in sick and submitted a letter from a

Marjorie Mom•oe v. Stoneleigh-Burnham School, Paul Bassett

6
08SEM02264

 non-physician requesting an additional two-week leave. Complainant conducted seminars
and workshops through her private consulting business while she was on leave,
Summary of Investigation and Analysis
It is undisputed that Respondent Bassett verbally expressed anger toward
Coxnplainant and lost his temper toward her during a meeting following his rettun to work
and after he was accused of sexual harassment, It is also undisputed that Complainant
participated in the sexual harassment investigation involving Respondent Bassett,
The evidence shows Complainant complained about coworkers retaliating against
her fox her participation in protected activities. The evidence shows Respondent did not
.
attempt to counsel or stop the behavior,
Thera are also facts in dispute z~egarding whether faculty and staff members
complained about Complainant because of her participation in a sexual harassment
investigation involving Respondent Bassett or because of her conduct and work
performance,
The evidence shows Respondent did not renew Complainant's contract. The
evidence also shows Complainant's performance was satisfactory before she engaged in
protected conduct. Issues also remain in dispute regarding whether Respondent Stoneleigh
did not renew Complainant's employment contract because of her conduct and
performance or because she engaged in protected conduct. Respondents submitted letters
of complaint from faculty and staff regarding Complainant dated Januaxy 11, 2008 and
Januaay 19, 2008, Witnesses who supporC Complainant state faculty and staff began to
criticize Complainant for the first time, including for issues that were not her
responsibility, soon after she engaged in protected activities. Complainant's witnesses
described the environment as a "free-for-all" and "open season" in regard to the faculty
and staff's treatment of Complainant. In addition, Complainant participated in an
investigation involving sexual harassment allegations on November 16, 2007.
Respondents had knowledge of her participation. Respondent Bassett admittedly
expressed anger toward Complainant when he returned to work on December 5, 2007,
following his leave, Therefore, there is sufficient evidence on which afact-finder could
conclude Complainant was subjected to unlawful retaliation,
It their May 19, 2009 submission to the Commission, Respondents recanted their
affirmed position that it was the chairperson ofthe Language Department's opinion that
three faculty members resigned because, at least in part, Complainant allegedly mishandled
disciplinary matters, When pressed for copies of the resignation letters, Respondents then
stated two faculty members were told Respondent Stoneleigh was not renewing their
cont~•acts due to budgetary constraints, but they had expressed dissatisfaction wzth
Complainant,

Marjorie Monroe v. Stoneleigh-Burnham School, Paul Bassett
08SEM02264

 Notably, Respondent Stoneleigh's sexual harassment policy is non-compliant with
M.G.L. ch,151B § 3A.
At all times pertinent to the complaint, Respondent Paul Bassett was a manager
who had the authority and duty to act on behalf of Respondent Stoneleigh, His alleged
aetzons toward Complainatat implicated Complainant's rights under the statutes and, if
proven true, interfered with Complainant's exercise or enjoyment of her right to a nondiscriminatory, harassment-flee vvorkplaee.
Conclusion
A finding of Probable Cause is recommended against Respondent StoneleighBurnham School an Respondent Paul Bassett for unlawful retaliation.
;~
Migdal a Rivera
Supervisor

Maxyanri Brunton
Investigator
Disposition

Pursuant to section 5 of M.G.L. c. 151B ofthe Massachusetts General Laws, and in
conforxnity wifih the foregoing findings, I have this day detei~nined that Probable Cause
exists fox crediting the allegations ofthe complaint against Respondent(s). Pursuant to
Section 5 of M.G.L, c. 151B,the panties will be afforded ari opportunity to participate in a
conciliation conference a the Commission,

~
Martin Ebel
Investigating Commissioner

Marjorie Monroe v. Stoneleigh-Burnham School,Paul Bassett
g
08SEM02264

J~2~oI
~~I~F
Date