Khaled and Maral Zakharia were parents of two children enrolled at Montessori Radmoor School, a private Montessori institution in Okemos, Michigan. The couple’s relationship with the School deteriorated over time after a series of disputes about school policies and staff decisions.
For example, beginning in 2021, Khaled objected to the inclusion of yoga in the School’s physical education program, claiming it conflicted with his family’s Catholic faith. He also opposed the school’s COVID-19 mask policy, instructing his son not to wear a mask outdoors even after the School made masking optional. When his son continued to wear a mask, Khaled began appearing at recess to ensure compliance with his wishes, sometimes entering the playground and demanding his son hand over his mask. The Head of School, Joseph Wood, warned Khaled that his conduct violated the School’s rules and directed him to speak with his children through the front office rather than directly during school hours.
Khaled later accused another student of belittling his son, including for his son being unfamiliar with NBA legend Michael Jordan. Wood investigated and concluded that both children bore responsibility, as Khaled’s son initiated some of the interactions by calling his classmate “stupid.” Khaled rejected that finding and sent increasingly accusatory messages to the School. In response, Wood emailed Khaled expressing concern about his tone and continued partnership with the School, stating that Khaled’s language “villainized” a nine-year-old and that he would no longer be permitted to observe recess because his presence undermined the safety and trust of the school environment. Khaled replied that the directive was “intimidating” and that any attempt to stop him from observing his children would be met with a lawsuit. The next day, Khaled again came to the School during recess, in direct violation of the ban. Shortly thereafter, the School expelled the Zakharias’ children, citing Khaled’s disrespect toward staff and repeated violations of policy.
After the expulsion, Tianna Dart, a member of the School’s Board of Trustees, exchanged text messages with two parents who knew the Zakharias and wanted more information about why the family left the School. Dart responded, “I wish I could shed some light but I’m just not at liberty to legally.” She also remarked that “[a]ll I can say is the decision was made with the well-being of the students, staff and school as a whole.”
The Zakharias sued the School, Wood, Dart, and other administrators for breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and threats. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The family appealed.
Breach of Contract
On the breach of contract claim, the Court of Appeals held that the School acted within its contractual rights under the Parent Handbook, which explicitly permitted dismissal of a student when a parent engaged in serious misconduct such as “trespassing in restricted areas without permission.” Because Khaled had been told in writing not to observe recess and did so anyway, his actions constituted trespass and justified dismissal. The Court rejected Khaled’s argument that the picnic area was not listed as “restricted,” finding that the Head of School’s specific directive rendered it off-limits.
Defamation
The parents alleged that statements made by Wood, other staff, and board member, Tianna Dart, defamed them by portraying Khaled as aggressive and disrespectful. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that most statements were either protected opinions, true, or privileged communications made among staff with a shared professional interest in school management. No evidence showed that any defendant acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Dart’s messages to parents stating that the expulsion was “well-documented and supported” were likewise accurate and not defamatory.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The Court of Appeals found that expelling the Zakharias’ children, though distressing, did not constitute the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary for an IIED claim. The decision was a lawful disciplinary action consistent with school policy.
Threat Claim
Under Michigan law, unlawful and malicious threats may by reason of their intended results become actionable claims. However, the Court rejected the parents’ argument that Wood’s warning that continued misconduct could result in expulsion constituted an unlawful threat. Because the School had the contractual right to impose such a consequence, the warning was not improper.
Zakharia v. Mich. Montessori Internationale, Inc. (Ct.App. Oct. 27, 2025) 2025 LX 477377.
Note: This decision reinforces the importance of clear and enforceable parent conduct provisions in school handbooks and enrollment agreements. The court here relied heavily on the handbook’s explicit language permitting dismissal for trespass and disrespectful behavior.