Student-on-student racial discrimination in school; 42 USC § 2000d; Davis ex rel LaShonda D v Monroe Cnty Bd of Educ; Whether defendant-school responded to plaintiff’s claims with “deliberate indifference”; Whether a school’s ineffective response automatically results in a jury issue based on deliberate indifference; Foster v Board of Regents of Univ of MI; Whether the school should have issued harsher suspensions

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant-Croswell-Lexington School District on plaintiff-CM’s student-on-student racial harassment claim where the plaintiff failed to show that the school responded to her claim with “deliberate indifference.” When CM was in the sixth, seventh, and ninth grades, she was subjected to student-on-student racial harassment. This included being mocked, called the “n-word,” and threatened, as well as being physically assaulted. She transferred to another school in the middle of her freshman year. She sued the school defendants, alleging they failed to adequately respond to her complaints, thus violating her civil rights. The district court granted defendants summary judgment explaining that under Davis, CM was required to show that she “suffered ‘actionable’ harassment and that her school responded to her complaints with ‘deliberate indifference.’” The school was only required to show that it “‘respond[ed] in good faith’” to harassment allegations to avoid liability. Here, the court held that there was no deliberate indifference to any of the alleged incidents. It reviewed the allegations by school year and found that the school’s responses were “not unreasonable” and in “good faith” where it took “affirmative steps to investigate the problem and discipline those involved.” It also took “proactive measures” to guard against further harassment. This lack of deliberate indifference was also fatal to her other claims. It rejected her argument that the school’s response was ineffective because it was in fact effective as to the student harassers involved in the particular incident at issue. The school could not take responsibility for future harassment incidents by unknown actors. An ineffective response does not necessarily result in a jury issue based on deliberate indifference. The court also found meritless CM’s argument that the suspensions applied to the harassers should have been “harsher” where the school properly acted “incrementally.”