Malick v. Croswell-Lexington: Sixth Circuit Clarifies the “Deliberate Indifference” Standard for Title VI Student-on-Student Harassment

Introduction

In April Malick v. Croswell-Lexington District Schools, No. 24-1147 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025), the Sixth Circuit confronted a painful factual backdrop: a biracial middle- and high-school student who endured repeated racial slurs, threats, and physical intimidation. Yet the Court affirmed summary judgment for the school district, holding that—even assuming a private right of action for student-on-student racial harassment exists under Title VI—the record could not support a finding that the District responded with deliberate indifference.

Although the Court “assumed without deciding” that LaShonda-style claims are cognizable under Title VI, this is the first published Sixth Circuit opinion to evaluate such a claim in depth. More broadly, the decision cements and extends the en banc ruling in Foster v. University of Michigan, 982 F.3d 960 (6th Cir. 2020), making clear that:

1) Ineffectiveness alone does not prove deliberate indifference; plaintiffs must show an “official decision not to remedy” the harassment.
2) Courts must evaluate each incident—individually and collectively—but focus on the school’s response to known acts by identified harassers, not on its inability to foresee future misconduct.
3) Evidence of a “racially hostile environment” in the abstract cannot substitute for proof that the institution’s responses to the plaintiff’s own complaints were clearly unreasonable.

Summary of the Judgment

C.M., represented by her parents April and Rob Malick, alleged that Croswell-Lexington Community Schools violated Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act by failing to address racial harassment. The district court granted summary judgment; the Sixth Circuit affirmed because:

C.M. proffered evidence of actionable harassment, but
She failed to create a genuine dispute that the District’s responses were “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.”

The Court catalogued 18 separate complaints across three school years and concluded that the District always investigated promptly, tailored discipline to each offender’s history and the severity of misconduct, and implemented protective measures (behaviour contracts, hall monitoring, schedule changes, employee termination, etc.). Therefore, no rational juror could find deliberate indifference, and the derivative constitutional and state-law claims necessarily failed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) – Established liability for student-on-student harassment under Title IX when school officials respond with deliberate indifference. The Sixth Circuit imported Davis’s framework into the Title VI context.
Foster v. University of Michigan (en banc) – Clarified that continued harassment, by itself, does not equal deliberate indifference; the focus is on an “official decision” to do nothing. Malick amplifies Foster by applying that principle to K-12 racial harassment.
Vance v. Spencer County, 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2000) – Often read to suggest that ineffective responses can prove indifference. Malick confines Vance, stressing that it involved only verbal warnings and no other remedial action.
Multi-Circuit authority (2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 9th) recognizing Title VI analogues to Davis claims. The Court harmonizes with, but does not yet formally adopt, this consensus.

Legal Reasoning

Assumption of Legal Availability – Without formally deciding, the Court presumed that Title VI supports deliberate-indifference claims. This allowed the panel to resolve the case on narrower factual grounds.
Two-part Davis Test – Plaintiff must prove (a) severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment and (b) deliberate indifference by the funding recipient.
Incident-by-Incident Scrutiny – The Court meticulously reviewed each complaint, showing how the District investigated, disciplined, and took preventative measures. Even where no discipline was meted out, the decision explained why the choice was reasonable (e.g., unverified rumor, student not present, COVID-19 shutdown).
“Clearly Unreasonable” Threshold – The Court reiterated that the standard is purposefully high to avoid turning Title VI into a strict-liability regime. Schools need only act in good faith; they are not guarantors of a harassment-free environment.
Rejection of Plaintiff’s “Better Approach” Argument – C.M. proposed harsher suspensions, Confederate-flag bans, and assemblies. Citing Davis and Michigan Attorney-General guidance, the Court refused to second-guess educational policy choices.

Impact of the Decision

First Published Sixth Circuit Application to Title VI – Though not a formal adoption of the cause of action, future litigants will cite Malick as controlling on the deliberate-indifference rubric for racial-harassment suits.
Narrows Vance – By emphasizing Foster’s en banc clarification, the opinion curtails arguments that persistence of harassment alone creates a jury issue.
K-12 Administrators’ Playbook – The Court effectively endorses a response model: investigate promptly, document, tailor discipline, involve parents, and take protective measures. Districts that follow this template will likely avoid Title VI liability.
Strategic Guidance for Plaintiffs – Claimants must marshal evidence that the school knowingly refused to act or persisted with patently ineffective measures. General campus climate evidence, without linkage to specific decision-making failures, will not suffice.
Foreshadows Future En Banc or Supreme Court Review – The panel’s “assume without deciding” posture highlights an unresolved doctrinal question in the Sixth Circuit: Is a Davis-style private right of action under Title VI universally recognized? The issue is ripe for definitive resolution.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title VI – Federal statute prohibiting race-based discrimination by entities receiving federal funds (e.g., public schools).
Student-on-Student (Peer) Harassment – Misconduct by fellow students that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive enough to deny the victim equal educational access.
Deliberate Indifference – A very high negligence-plus standard. The institution must have actual knowledge and respond in a way that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances—not merely imperfect or unsuccessful.
Summary Judgment – A procedural device allowing courts to dispose of claims when no material factual dispute requires a trial, granting judgment “as a matter of law.”
Assume Without Deciding – Judicial practice of bypassing an open legal question because the case can be resolved on other grounds.

Conclusion

Malick reinforces a restrictive reading of deliberate indifference under Title VI/IX jurisprudence. Schools are not insurers against every future act of racism; they are obliged to act reasonably and in good faith once notified of specific incidents. Where, as here, administrators investigate promptly, discipline proportionally, and implement protective measures, liability will not attach—even if harassment tragically continues from new actors.

For practitioners, the decision underscores the evidentiary burden plaintiffs must meet and provides a defensive roadmap for educational institutions. It also signals that the Sixth Circuit may soon need to confront—head-on—the question it sidestepped: whether Title VI unequivocally authorizes peer-harassment suits. Until then, Malick stands as the Circuit’s leading authority on what deliberate indifference is not.