By the Court (Agnes, Maldonado & Sacks, JJ.), Clerk
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A Superior Court judge dismissed the plaintiff's complaint alleging that the defendants, all Boston Public School officials, violated G. L. c. 71, § 37O, and G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H-11I, by not adequately addressing bullying directed at his twin daughters in kindergarten. On appeal, the plaintiff contends only that the judge used an incorrect definition of "coercion" when interpreting §§ 11H-11I. We affirm.
Discussion. To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead "'allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)' an entitlement to relief." Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). We review dismissal of a complaint de novo. A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 479 Mass. 419, 424 (2018).
To establish a claim under §§ 11H-11I, the plaintiff must plead that "(1) [the twins'] exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of either the United States or of the Commonwealth, (2) ha[s] been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, and (3) that the interference or attempted interference was by 'threats, intimidation or coercion.'" Brunelle v. Lynn Pub. Schs., 433 Mass. 179, 182 (2001), quoting Swanset Dev. Corp. v. Taunton, 423 Mass. 390, 395 (1996).
The parties and motion judge focused on the element of "coercion," as do we. Coercion is the application of physical or moral force to someone to "constrain him [or her] to do against his [or her] will something he [or she] would not otherwise have done." Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, 474 (1994), quoting Deas v. Dempsey, 403 Mass. 468, 471 (1988). Here, the complaint merely states that the twins' teacher "educated the children in her classroom not to speak to their parents about what transpires in the classroom. [The twins] are reluctant to speak of transgressions." Regardless of whether a teacher's classroom ground rule of the type alleged is good educational policy, we cannot conclude that it is the sort of application of moral force to which the "coercion" element of the statute was directed. Moreover, the complaint does not allege that the twins ever did something or stopped doing something against their will. See Brunelle, 433 Mass. at 183 (plaintiffs not coerced where, inter alia, they continued homeschooling their children despite criminal complaint against them for doing so).
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion to reconsider affirmed.
By the Court (Agnes, Maldonado & Sacks, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: September 3, 2019.