Marblehead teacher alleges retaliation after speaking out on antisemitism; committee hears level-3 grievance in open session

Prachete Karnes, a long‑time English lead teacher at Marblehead, told the school committee in an open‑session level‑3 grievance that her lead‑teacher role was split shortly after she publicly raised concerns about antisemitic incidents in the district and that the action amounted to retaliation.

"I believe that I have been discriminated against because I am Jewish and I am a Zionist," Karnes said. She told the committee the split first occurred a month after she spoke at an ICAN summit and that the change cut her stipend roughly in half while leaving her responsibilities largely unchanged. Her counsel asked the committee to "admit that a mistake happened and correct it."

Attorney Yael, representing Karnes, said the timing of the split and the district’s subsequent staffing decisions created a materially different outcome for Karnes, who has served in the role for 16 years. Counsel told the committee Karnes seeks reinstatement to a full lead‑teacher assignment and back pay for two years; the stipend figure discussed in the hearing was estimated at about $3,000–$4,000 per year.

Superintendent John described the prior grievance process: the matter began at the school level, was elevated through the internal grievance steps, and was reviewed by the administration. He said his review found no compelling evidence that the stipend split was motivated by discrimination, and therefore he did not overturn the principal’s decision. "In my estimation, there wasn't anything that was compelling that indicated that it was...anti‑Semitic," he said.

Speakers for the complainant and community members urged the committee to reverse the action, highlighting the professional, social and financial consequences for the teacher. Counsel said an amended Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) filing now references the issue and that arbitration and MCAD proceedings could follow if the parties do not resolve it.

The committee voted earlier in the meeting (by motion recorded on the public record) to hear the grievance in open session at the teacher’s request; members discussed whether to deliberate further in executive session to review bargaining and legal options. The record shows the committee later voted to enter executive session on multiple litigation and bargaining matters without returning to open session that night.

The grievance marks a high‑profile personnel dispute for the district, combining allegations of retaliation and discrimination with pending internal grievance and external administrative processes. The committee’s next steps were not decided in open session; the superintendent said the district must follow contractual timelines and grievance procedures as the matter proceeds.