Cros-Lex Reply To Malick Federal Complaint

Case 2:22-cv-11126-DML-CI ECF No. 12, PageID.
48 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 47
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
APRIL MALICK, and ROB MALICK,

Individually and as Next Friend for
C.M., a minor child, Case No: 22-cv-11126
Plaintiffs, Hon. David M. Lawson
v. Mag. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr
CROSWELL-LEXINGTON DISTRICT
SCHOOLS and the CROSWELL-LEXINGTON
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
DAN GILBERTSON, in his individual and official capacity,
and KYLE WOOD, in his individual and official capacity.
Defendants.
DEBORAH GORDON LAW Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, PC

Deborah L. Gordon (P27058) Timothy Mullins (P28021)
Elizabeth Marzotto Taylor (P82061) Travis Comstock (P72025)
Sarah Gordon Thomas (P83935) Attorneys for Defendants
Molly Savage (P84472) 101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Tenth Floor
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Troy, MI 48084-5280
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220 Phone: (248) 457-7036
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Fax: (248) 404-6311
(248) 258-2500 tmullins@gmhlaw.com
dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com tcomstock@gmhlaw.com
emarzottotaylor@deborahgordonlaw.co
m
sthomas@deborahgordonlaw.com
msavage@deborahgordonlaw.com
__________________________________________________________________
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:22-cv-11126-DML-CI ECF No. 12, PageID.49 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 47
Defendants, Croswell-Lexington Community Schools,1 Croswell- Lexington
Board of Education, Kyle Wood, and Dan Gilbertson, in their official and individual
capacities (collectively “the District”), by and through their counsel,
GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C., answers the Plaintiffs’ Complaint,
and in support states as follows:
I. Jurisdiction Is Proper
1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiffs’ related state law claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those
claims arise out of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs’ federal claims.
ANSWER: Admitted.
2. The Plaintiffs reside in the County of Sanilac, Michigan.
ANSWER: The District admits that the Plaintiffs were residents of
Sanilac County while C.M. attend school but currently lack knowledge as to
their current county of residence.
1
Misidentified in the Plaintiffs’ caption as “Croswell-Lexington District
Schools”.
2
3. Defendants Croswell-Lexington Board of Education and Croswell-
Lexington District Schools (“Cros-Lex”) reside in the town of Croswell and the
County of Sanilac, Michigan.
ANSWER: Admitted.
4. Cros-Lex School District and Cros-Lex Board of Education are the
recipient of federal funds as that term is defined under Title VI.
ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant Croswell-Lexington Community
Schools is a sub-recipient of Title VI funding. Denied that the Croswell-
Lexington Board of Education receives Title VI funding.
5. Defendant Kyle Wood, at all times material to this action, has served
as the Principal of Cros-Lex High School.
ANSWER: Admitted.
6. Defendant Dan Gilbertson, at all times material to this action, has
served as the Superintendent of Schools for Cros-Lex.
ANSWER: Admitted, but in further answer the District states that
Superintendent Dan Gilbertson is currently the Superintendent of another
school district.
II. Facts
A. Background
3
7. C.M. is the adopted daughter of Rob and April Malick (the Malicks),
she is minor child. She is Black; Rob and April are white.
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge on which to form an answer as
to whether C.M. (“the Student”) is adopted. The District admits that the
Student is African-American and that the Plaintiffs are Caucasian.
8. C.M. was one of three Black students in a student population of 2,053
in the Cros-Lex school district.
ANSWER: Denied. In further answer, the District states that as of
February 9, 2022 it had a total of 2,038 students of which 8 identified as
African-American.
9. C.M. has attended Cros-Lex schools since 2018 when she entered
middle school.
ANSWER: Denied in part. The District’s records report that the Student
transferred into the District on November 6, 2018. She then disenrolled on
October 6, 2020 until re-enrolling on August 8, 2021.
10. C.M. endured racial harassment and discrimination from other
students, faculty and staff, since the time of her enrollment.
ANSWER: Admitted that the Student and Plaintiffs allege harassment
and discrimination herein but denied as to unreported instances of harassment
or discrimination and, in further answer, the District states that all reported
4
instances of such were promptly and completely investigated and, as
appropriate, discipline was issued.
11. As set forth below, in February 2022, C.M. was forced out of the
district due to racial discrimination.
ANSWER: Admitted that the Plaintiffs elected to have the Student
participate in online schooling offered by the District, but the District neither
admits nor denies the remaining allegations contained therein for the reason
that the District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as to why the
Plaintiffs made this election for the Student and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to
their proofs.
B. C.M. is Bullied and Harassed at Cros-Lex Because she is Black
12. In September 2018, when C.M. was in sixth grade, she was physically
assaulted by another student because she was Black. Rob and April Malick reported
this to the School Board and Defendant Gilbertson.
ANSWER: Denied that any alleged assault occurred in September of
2018 as the Student was not enrolled in the District at that time. In further
answer, the District states that its Middle School administration investigated a
reported assault made by the Plaintiffs in September of 2019.
13. The Malicks also filed a police report as to the assault.
5
ANSWER: Admitted that the Plaintiffs filed a police report on or about
September 9, 2019. (Exhibit A). The Plaintiffs told law enforcement that they
did not want to press charges. (Id.)
14. During C.M.’s sixth grade (2018-2019) and seventh grade (2019-
2020) school years, she was relentlessly bullied and harassed because she was
Black, including regularly called the n-word. Students also made fun of her “wig”
and threatened to “rip her wig off.”2 The Malicks reported the harassment to the
school.
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as
to the allegation of “relentless[ ] bully[ing]”. In further answer, the District
states that any reported incidents of bullying, harassment, or name calling
were promptly and fully investigated by the Middle School Administration.
15. The middle school principal told the Malicks she knew that C.M. was
being racially bullied and could see the negative toll it took on her.
Answer: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the
allegation for the reason that the Middle School principal is no longer
employed at the District and it cannot confirm that such a conversation ever
occurred, and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.
2
Race discrimination is inclusive of negative references to traits historically associated
with race, including references to hair texture and appearance.
6
16. Based on the above, the Malicks felt they had no choice but to
homeschool C.M. for her eighth-grade year.
to the Plaintiffs’ intent or motivation for electing to homeschool the Student,
and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.
17. The Malicks asked the school to remedy the harassment and
discrimination, hoping to send her back to school for ninth grade at the High School.
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief
because of the vagueness of the allegation with respect to what was “asked”
and when, and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.
18. The district took no action to train students or teachers on
discrimination, harassment, and bullying, or otherwise remedy its discrimination
problem.
ANSWER: The District denies the allegation in part as to any “problem”
in the District. The District further denies that allegation with respect to
training because it did and does provide equity and harassment training for all
employees. In further answer, the District implemented a Social Emotional
Learning program with both its staff and students. The District further states
that it had staff and administrators take a Safe Schools Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion training module in December 2021.
7
19. On June 11, 2021, a student wore a large confederate flag as a cape to
school (below). Rob reported this to Defendant Gilbertson:
Rob added that he had hoped to send C.M. back to school for ninth grade but
“perhaps [Cros-Lex] wasn’t the place.”
ANSWER: The District admits that while the Student was being homeschooled
another student wore the flag that is in the picture. The District denies the
substance of Mr. Malick alleged reporting for the reason that the student was
told they could not wear that flag in the building or on District property, and
appropriately intervened and investigated the incident.
20. The student who wore the flag was not disciplined.
ANSWER: Denied. In further answer, the District states that the then
Middle School principal immediately told the student to take the flag off, to
8
not to wear the confederate flag at school again, an intervention with the
student occurred, and other follow up occurred. This discipline follows the
District Student Handbook and the ban on capes, etc., as part of the District’s
written dress code.
21. The Malicks decided to send C.M. back to school for in-person
learning for ninth grade. The first day was August 31, 2021.
ANSWER: Admitted that the Plaintiff reenrolled the Student effective
August 2, 2021 and that she attended school in person.
22. A few days before the first day, the Malicks met with Defendant Wood
to discuss what C.M. had been through in middle school—the harassment, threats,
and name-calling, all based on her race— and listed the names of the students who
most frequently bullied C.M.. They asked Defendant Wood to monitor the situation.
ANSWER: Defendant Wood recalls a meeting with the Plaintiffs but
denies that they provided the alleged information to him at that meeting. The
first concern reported to Defendant Wood by the Plaintiffs was on or about
October 4, 2021.
23. Upon the start of the school year, Cros-Lex students immediately
began bullying and harassing C.M. based on her race.
with respect to any “bullying and harassing” of the Student, and thus leaves
9
the Plaintiffs to their proofs. In further answer, the District relies on its Answer
to ¶ 22 as to the first report of alleged harassment or bullying, and that the
Plaintiffs’ first complaint on September 9, 2021 related to another student
hiding the Student’s phone and that student making unkind comments to a
third student, none of which involved alleged racial harassment or bullying.
24. Between September – October 2021, C.M. was often called the n-word
and made fun of because she was Black.
ANSWER: The District denies receiving any complaints between
September and October of 2021 alleging the use of the “n-word” to the Student.
In further answer, the District admits that a complaint was received from the
Plaintiffs on or about October 4, 2021 related to comments made by students
to the Student about “plantation” and other comments. All such incidents were
investigated and, if appropriate, discipline issued to the students making such
inappropriate comments.
25. On October 4, Rob submitted to Gilbertson, via email, “Notes on
bullying” he had complied, documenting what his daughter had experienced. He
named eight students and listed multiple racist statements made to C.M., including:
● “Go back to the plantation and pick cotton”
● Being called the n-word
● “Your hair looks like shit”
10
● “I’m going to snatch your weave”
● I’m going to snatch your weave and burn it”
● “I bet your hair is dead”
ANSWER: The District admits receiving a complaint from the Plaintiffs
via email on October 4, 2021 alleging the above statements made to the
Student. The District further states it promptly and fully investigation all the
alleged statements. Six students received suspensions as a result of the
District’s investigations, including one student not named by the Plaintiffs. In
further answer, one of the comments (“I’m going to snatch your weave”) was
admitted to have been said by a student who stated they were friends with the
Student and routinely made this comment to her believing it was a joke. This
was the first time any complaint was made about that statement to the District.
26. One student mocked the Black Lives Matter movement by kneeling
and putting up his fist, starring at C.M., and laughing.
for the reason that it received no complaint regarding the alleged actions, and
thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs
11
27. Also on October 4, 2021, Rob sent an email to Defendant Gilbertson
titled “BIG Racial Problems at the HS today”:
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick sent to Defendant Daniel
Gilbertson with the foregoing statements. The District relies on its Answer to
¶ 25 for its further answer.
28. He received no response from Gilbertson.
ANSWER: Superintendent Gilbertson forward the above email, which
had also been sent to Ms. Lisa Burns, to the Middle School principal to follow
up on. The principal discussed the email with Mrs. April Malick on the evening
of October 4, 2021. The principal and Ms. Burns met with the Plaintiffs and
the Student on October 5, 2021 to discuss the email and the alleged statements.
29. Receiving no response from administration, Rob contacted a few of
C.M.’s teachers.
ANSWER: The District denies that it did not respond to the October 4,
2021 email. As stated in the answer to ¶ 28, Ms. Burns and Mr. Kyle Wood met
with the Plaintiffs and the Student on October 5, 2021. Mr. Wood also
responded to Mr. Malick’s October 4, 2021 email the next day stating the
District would follow up and investigate the statements. Mr. Malick also sent
12
an email on October 5, 2021 to a teacher confirming a meeting he had that day
with Mr. Wood and Ms. Burns. The District admits that at least one teacher
received a communication from Mr. Malick.
30. On October 5 he wrote to one teacher, stating:
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick sent an email on
October 5, 2021, the same day he had a meeting with Mr. Wood and Ms. Burns,
to a teacher alleging unspecified racist statements. The District further states
that the teacher responded that if such statements are made, she encouraged
the Student to inform her so that action could be taken against the behavior.
(Exhibit B). The teacher further told Mr. Malick that “[t]his is the first I am
hearing of this issue in my class.”
31. The teacher responded, stating “I am sorry that this has been an
ongoing problem for C.M.. . . . I hope we can bring this to an end in my class.”
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief for
the reason that the email is not attached as an exhibit and the District copy of
13
any email exchange between the teacher and Mr. Malick (Exhibit B) does not
include the quoted phrases, and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.
32. Rob told another teacher that C.M. “felt like she was in the middle of
a Klan rally” in her class.
ANSWER: The District denies that The Student told any teacher that
she “felt like she was in the middle of a klan rally” for the reason that the email
Mr. Malick (Exhibit B) sent does not state another teacher was informed, but
only that the Student upon coming home she told the Plaintiffs, not the District,
that she “felt like she was in the middle of a klan rally” in a particular class.
33. In response, the teacher told Rob that C.M. had received a detention
for being on her phone during class. (C.M. was on her phone, texting with her father,
because she was fearful for her safety. The Malicks informed the school of this.
Upon the Malicks request, the school waived the detention.)
ANSWER: The District admits that the Student was given a detention
for the use of her phone during class, which was contrary to school policy. In
further answer, the District states that the Student’s use of her phone contrary
to policy was “a recurring issue” prior to the events alleged on October 4, 2021.
(Exhibit B). The District further admits that it removed the detention.
14
34. As a result of the racist behavior, on October 5, 2021, Rob requested a
meeting with Defendant Wood. Rob told Defendant Wood that C.M. was being
bullied and harassed because of her race almost daily. He shared the examples listed
above. Defendant Wood assured Rob the school would put a stop to the racial
bullying.
ANSWER: The District admits that a meeting occurred between the
Plaintiffs and Mr. Wood and Ms. Burns on October 5, 2021. The District denies
that Mr. Wood “assured” the Plaintiffs that racial bullying would be stopped.
In further answer, the District states that Mr. Wood told Mr. Malick that
racial bullying is not tolerated, and any reported instance is promptly and fully
investigated and, where appropriate, discipline is issued.
35. Also in October 2021, some students organized a group chat, via the
“Snapchat” app, for their Civics class. The purpose of the chat was to discuss
classwork. The chat often devolved from topics on Civics to banter. Racism in the
chat was common. One student remarked that former president Barack Obama was
a “stupid n*****”. The Malicks reported the comment to Defendant Gilbertson.
ANSWER: The District admits that it was made aware of a social media
conversation that was not school sponsored or teacher driven occurring
between students that did not include the Student after school hours and not
on school property. The District further states that it investigated the
15
complaint and issued a multi-day suspension to the student in the chat group
who made offensive comment about former President Barack Obama.
36. On October 12, Rob emailed Kevin Watkins, the President of the Port
Huron NAACP, notifying him of what was happening to C.M.
to the referenced email and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.
37. On October 14, 2021, a student told another student to “snatch C.M.’s
weave3” and began saying “she [C.M.] is wearing a weave” to the class.
ANSWER: The District admits that it received information that students
in the 6th hour Spanish class made comments about the Student, who is not in
that class but is in 2nd hour Spanish class, and her hair. The District further
states that it met with Mr. Malick on or about October 26, 2021 to discuss these
comments and gather more information. The District administration promptly
investigated the incident under its anti-discrimination policy.
38. Rob reported the comments and the names of the students who made
them in an email to Defendant Gilbertson. He received no response. ANSWER:
The District denies that it did not respond to Mr. Malick’s report. The District
3
A “weave” is an artificial or natural hair extension fixed into human hair, usually
associated with Black hair.
16
met with Mr. Malick on October 26, 2021 regarding the statements made on
October 14, 2021.
39. On or around October 27, 2021, two students were mocking C.M. and
using the n-word in Snapchat conversation. C.M. told them “STOP, it’s…not
funny” and explained the history behind the word. One student responded, “free
speech, n***a”.
ANSWER: The District admits that it received screen shots of a social
media chat between students by email from Mr. Malick dated October 27,
2021. Mr. Malick stated the chat over in “the past.” The District further states
that the chat was a private conversation between students and not school
sponsored or related to any class.
40. Rob sent a screenshot of the chat to Defendants Wood and Gilbertson.
He never received a response.
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick sent an email with the
screen shots to Superintendent Gilbertson and Mr. Kyle Wood on October 27,
2021 stating that the conversation took place in “the past.” Mr. Wood
investigated the incident.
41. The racial harassment and bullying towards C.M. also included threats
of violence.
17
ANSWER: The District admits that the Plaintiffs reported the
allegations and that it promptly and appropriately investigated the complaint.
The District further substantiated that the student made threatening
comments to the Student and that student received a suspension for the
comments.
42. On October 27, 2021, one student told another student, who told C.M.,
“these n*****s are gonna get it.” C.M. confronted the student who made the
statement. Rob immediately reported this to Defendants Wood and Gilbertson, and
the school counselor. Rob stated his “fear…that the racism and bullying is making
her [C.M.] unravel…I would like to have a safe space for her at school.”
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick sent an email dated
October 27, 2021 to Mr. Wood, Superintendent Gilbertson, and the school
counselor wherein Mr. Malick alleges that one student told another student
that “ ‘these n****** are gonna get it.’” It was not reported how the Student
learned of the comment. The District admits that Mr. Malick stated his belief
“that the racism and bullying is making [the Student] unravel” and that he
wanted the Student to have a “safe space . . . to decompress” and suggested the
school counselor’s office may be appropriate.
43. Rob received a response from the school counselor, only, who told Rob
that C.M. was welcome to come “decompress” in her office anytime. Defendant
18
Wood later told C.M. that she had “escalated” the situation by confronting the
student who made the statement.
ANSWER: The District admits that the school counselor responded by
email dated October 28, 2021, copying Mr. Wood and Superintendent
Gilbertson, stating that the Student could of course come to her office anytime
to talk and decompress. The District further states that Mr. Wood met with
Mr. Malick and the school counselor about his email and immediately
conducted an investigation into the claims.
44. On or around October 29, 2021, C.M. learned that the same student
who made the above threat stated that “all the n******s will be shot after school
today at 3:00 pm”.
to what the Student learned and when and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their
proofs.
45. The Malicks, distraught, immediately notified Defendant Wood in an
email with the student’s name and the subject line “urgent.” Rob told Defendant
Wood that he had “serious doubts” about the school’s ability to protect C.M.
ANSWER: The District admits that Mrs. Malick left a voicemail with
the vice principal stating that a student was allegedly coming for the Student
19
after school. Nothing in the voicemail stated anything about any student being
shot or of a specific threat to shoot the Student.
46. The Malicks drove to the school to ensure their daughter’s safety and
to report the comment to Defendant Gilbertson. They also filed a police report.
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge as to whether the Plaintiffs
drove to school on October 29, 2021 and therefore leaves the Plaintiffs to their
proofs. In further answer, Superintendent Gilbertson initiated contact with
Mrs. Malick after being informed that she posted on Facebook that a student
may be bringing a gun to the school. Mrs. Malick admitted during that call
that law enforcement confirmed that its investigation did not reveal a specific
threat to the Student or to African-American students generally.
47. Defendant Gilbertson told the Malicks he did not believe the school
could keep their daughter safe.
ANSWER: Superintendent Gilbertson denies making any statement
that expressly or impliedly inferred any lack of effort on the District’s part to
protect the Student and all other students. In further answer, the
Superintendent recalls indicating that, as evidenced by other shootings at
schools, a school district cannot 100% guarantee safety of every student despite
the best plans and security measures. It was in this general context that the
20
Plaintiffs may have misinterpreted and inferred the allegation above, which as
stated is false.
48. As a result, in early November, C.M. began walking with two teachers
from class to class for protection. The teachers who walked with C.M. varied based
on availability.
ANSWER: The District admits that persons employed by third-party
agency (instructional aides) were made available and assigned, with the
Plaintiffs’ permission, to assist the Student as a proactive measure.
49. The teachers who walked with C.M. were, however, more harmful
than helpful. They ordered C.M. around, told her to “shut up” and “sit down”. C.M.
felt they were not protecting her and might also hold discriminatory animus towards
her because of her race. The Malicks reported this to Defendant Gilbertson.
ANSWER: The District denies the allegation as stated for the reason that
it is untrue and, in further answer, the District states that it followed up on any
complaints made. From that investigation one of the third-party’s employees
was dismissed by that employer, and there was no substantiation as to the
alleged comments by the second third-party employee.
50. Shortly thereafter, the Malicks learned that another teacher who was
scheduled to start walking with C.M. for protection, made racist comments about
21
her, stating that C.M. was “playing the race card”, which “is what blacks do”, and
that she “deserved” to be treated that way because C.M. herself was “no saint”.
ANSWER: The District admits that the alleged statements were
investigated, and a third-party employee was dismissed by the non-District
employer.
51. On November 8, 2021, the Malicks reported the counselor’s comments
in an email to Defendants Gilbertson and Woods and requested a meeting.
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick emailed Superintendent
Gilbertson, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Kevin Watkins about a District employee
allegedly telling him about inappropriate statements made by a “security
detail” member. Mr. Malick did not identify the employee, which hampered
the investigation into the alleged statements. The District further admits that
a meeting was scheduled for November 11, 2021.
52. In the same email, Rob told Defendants he had learned that a school
counselor was skipping over the “diversity and inclusion” lesson during teacher
training sessions, noting that “maybe the problem” of racism at the school was
“much deeper than we suspected.”
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick alleged in his November
8, 2021 email that “the person who trains new employees” stated to another
unidentified employee that inclusion training videos would not be watched.
22
Mr. Malick did not assert that the person allegedly making the statement was
the “school counselor” as alleged here. The District further states that it
nonetheless investigated the claim of new employees not watching inclusion
videos and determined that it was false.
53. Other teachers made negative racial comments. The Civics teacher told
his class that Black Lives Matter was a “terrorist organization.”4
to what “teachers” are at issue, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. In
further answer, the District states that no investigation it has conducted of any
teacher raised that allegation that the phrase “terrorist organization” was
stated. The District further states that promptly and appropriately
investigated the allegations against a civics teacher, which was raised during a
Board of Education meeting by the parent of another student. Following it
investigation, the District issued a letter of reprimand to the teacher.
4
This teacher had other complaints from students and parents, including repeatedly
calling a Hispanic student “Jose”, when that was not his name, consistently
mispronouncing an Asian student’s name despite having been corrected many times,
and speaking to her slowly as though she could not understand English, and telling
female students in the class who believed in feminism that they should be in the
kitchen. ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge or information on which to
state an answer for the reason that the alleged “complaints” are vague, fail to
identify the “teacher”, lack a date, and are generally non-specific preventing
the District from reviewing its records and, therefore, leaves the Plaintiffs to
their proofs.
23
54. Another teacher told C.M. that “not all racists are bad people.”
ANSWER: The District admits that it investigated the claim by the
Student that a substitute teacher made the comment, in the context of the
Student first stating that an absent student was suspended that day for being
a “bad person” and “a racist”. The substitute received a letter of reprimand.
55. In November 2021, Rob again requested a meeting with Defendants
Gilbertson and Wood. He reported the teachers’ comments and told Defendants that
C.M.’s situation was not improving.
ANSWER: The District admits that a meeting was scheduled for
November 11, 2021.
56. On November 12, 2021, the Malicks filed a complaint with the
Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR), alleging that C.M. was facing racial
discrimination and a hostile environment at the school from both the teachers and
students, stating:
Most recently on November 8, 2021, my daughter was subjected to a hostile

environment by some Caucasian students and two Caucasian employees. She
was constantly subjected to comments and remarks that were racially
stereotypical and called a disparaging name. Students would wear shirts with
the confederate flag and make derogatory remarks towards my daughter. She
was also threatened with bodily harm and death threats. I complained on
several occasions, most recently on November 10, 2021, but no remedial
solution was reached. I believe my daughter’s race and engaging in protected
activity were factors in the hostile environment.
24
ANSWER: Admitted that the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the
MDCR and that complaint speaks for itself. In further answer, the District
states that MDCR has not commenced any investigation, has not made any
determination on the complaint, and dismissed the complaint on June 16, 2022.
57. The school was made aware of the complaint and hired an attorney.
The school did not take any action to end the racial harassment and bullying directed
at C.M.
ANSWER: The District admits that it received notice from the MDCR
of a complaint being filed. The District denies the remaining allegation for the
reason that it is untrue, affirmatively states that all reported instances of
alleged bullying, harassment, or discrimination were promptly and
appropriately investigated, and therefore leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.
58. On November 15, 2021, Rob, April, and C.M., along with other
families effected by Cros-Lex’s pervasive prejudicial environment, attended a
Board Meeting. The Malicks also invited Kevin Watkins.
ANSWER: The District admits that the Plaintiffs and other families
were present at the November 15, 2021 Board of Education meeting. The
District lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the whether other
families were affected and denies any “pervasive prejudicial environment[.]”
25
The District further states that all allegations presented at the Board meeting
were promptly and fully investigated.
59. During the Board meeting, the Malicks, other families, and Mr.
Watkins reported a long list of difficulties that Black students face at Cros-Lex,
citing specific examples, such as jokes about George Floyd and the holocaust,
mocking BLM, name-calling including the n-word, references to going back to the
planation, and physical threats.
ANSWER: The District admits that the Plaintiffs and other, including
Mr. Watkins, raised issues about alleged racism, which were promptly and
fully investigated where the allegations were specific enough to allow
investigation.
60. Mr. Watkins told the School Board there is “racism...here, in Croswell
Lexington…this is racism.” He stated, “you allow students to walk in here [the
school] draped like superman with the confederate flag...which stands for
hate…where are the teachers? Where are the administrators?”
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge or information as to what Mr.
Watkins stated specifically, and therefore leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.
In further answer, the District states that Mr. Watkins’ statements as quoted
in this allegation demonstrates that he lacked knowledge about the District’s
response to the situation and relies on its Answer in ¶¶ 19-20, supra.
26
61. He also noted that racism coming from staff and administrators
themselves. He urged the school to implement training for students and teachers,
which the school had not done in the past.
ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge or information to form a belief
as to the allegation that “racism [was] coming from staff and administrators”
for the reason that Mr. Watkins never provided the District with these alleged
statements and that any complaints that were received through other persons
were investigated fully and promptly. The District further states that it has not
received any complaint involving racism of any administrator. The District
further states that it has required all staff to participate in equity and inclusion
training.
62. One Black student discussed her experience with racism and noted she
continues to have problems with the “same students, same families”.
ANSWER: The District admits that an African-American student spoke
at the November 15, 2021 Board meeting, but lacks knowledge or information
as to that student’s “experience with racism” or any ongoing problems.
63. During the meeting, the Board passed a Resolution to “reaffirm the
commitment” to its existing anti-discrimination policy. The policy was roughly two
paragraphs long and used pro-forma language. It was ineffective.
27
ANSWER: Admitted that the Board of Education passed a Resolution
on November 15, 2021 that stated, in part, that “the Croswell-Lexington
Community Schools Board of Education unequivocally stands against all
forms of unlawful discrimination, including but not limited to discrimination
based on race, sex, color, national origin, height, weight and marital status[.]”
(emphasis added). The District denies that the Resolution (attached as Exhibit
C) “used pro-forma language” or “was ineffective”.
64. Unfortunately, the Board’s “recommitment” to adhering to its existing
policy was not honored.
ANSWER: Denied.
65. The school provided no training on the policy, or any training on anti-
discrimination and harassment, to teachers and students.
ANSWER: Denied. In further answer, the District states that it did
implement diversity and inclusion training for all staff. In further answer, the
District states that the high school also provided social-emotional learning
program which addressed “Salutes & Snubs” on April 26, 2022 and provided
the opportunity for students to attend a diversity and sexual harassment
education training June 2022.
66. Students continued to be given broad latitude to say what they pleased
with no repercussions.
28
ANSWER: Denied. For reported inappropriate statements or claims of
racially harassing and bullying, student determined after investigation to have
made the statements do receive appropriate consequences based on the
Student Handbook for discriminatory language at school.
67. On November 16, 2021, the day after the Board meeting, Rob sent an
email to Defendant Gilbertson asking about a student who wore a tree shirt to school
referring to President Joe Biden as “FJB” [F---Joe Biden]:
ANSWER: Admitted that the email was sent. The District lacks
knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the relevancy of the quoted email
and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. In further answer, the District
states that the student that wore the shirt was disciplined.
68. On November 19, 2021, a male student told C.M. “I hate all you Black
bitches.” Rob reported this to Defendants Gilbertson and Wood.
ANSWER: The District admits that Mr. Malick reported this statement
on Friday, November 19, 2021. The incident was investigated promptly, and
Mr. Malick informed of that by emailed dated November 19, 2021 at 4:37 p.m.,
the next Monday and Tuesday (November 22-23), and the student received a
29
5-day out of school suspension effective November 23, 2021, which was one
school day after Mr. Malick reported the incident.
69. Nevertheless, the school allowed the student to remain in school. He
continued to target C.M., at one point threatening to aim scissors with slingshots at
her head. He also had a knife from the cafeteria and stated he was going to cut C.M.
ANSWER: The District admits that the student at issue remained in
school for on November 22 and 23 while the due process procedures for
investigating the statement were followed, including interviewing several
students. In further answer, the District states that it proactively limited
contact between that student and the Student. In further answer, regarding
the allegation about a threat to aim scissors at the Student, this was
investigated as well and was dealt with through the suspension. The District
denies that the Plaintiffs ever reported the allegation that the student had a
“knife” and threated to “cut” the Student.
70. The Malicks reported this to the school and filed a police report. As a
result, the school and the police investigated C.M. for wrongdoing.
ANSWER: The District admits that it conducted an investigation, as it
does of all claims of wrongdoing, of the Student based on allegations by another
student that the Student was hitting and harassing the other student in the
hallway.
30
71. Despite the Malicks making roughly twenty complaints to Defendants
about a racially hostile environment between June 2021- December 2021, including
multiple in person meetings at the school, no change occurred.
ANSWER: The District admits that it promptly and full investigated all
allegations of harassment or other claims reported to the District by the
Plaintiffs or the Student. The District denies that “no change occurred” as it
issued discipline as appropriate and did not unreasonably fail to respond to
the claims and addressed all allegations.
72. Defendants’ actions or inactions were clearly unreasonable in light of
the known circumstances that C.M. faced at school.
ANSWER: Denied.
73. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the complaints,
words, and actions of students directed against C.M.. At times, unbelievably, C.M.
herself was blamed for “bating” teachers and students or “instigating” racist
conduct.
ANSWER: Denied.
74. As a result of the foregoing, in January 2022, C.M. experienced an
episode of extreme mental and emotional distress, as per her doctor. During the
episode, she told her parents that because of being harassed and bullied at school,
31
she “wished she was white.” She told them she could no longer endure attending
Cros-Lex. Her doctor later diagnosed C.M. with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
to allegations or statements and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.
C. C.M. is Forced out of the District Because of Racial Bullying
75. Left with no other option from the school, on February 11, the Malicks
informed the school that C.M. would not be reentering the building. She began
attended classes virtually, from home.
ANSWER: The District admits that on January 3, 2022 Mrs. Malick
informed it that the Student’s would participate in instruction through the
District online platform. The District further answers that it lacks knowledge
upon which to form a belief as to the reason for the Plaintiffs electing to have
the Student participate in instruction online and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to
their proofs. The District further answers that despite participating in online
instruction the Student continued to participate in extracurricular activities in
person.
76. Based on the foregoing actions and in-actions, C.M. was forced to
leave the school to preserve her physical and mental health.
32
77. Defendants’ actions and in-actions deprived C.M. of her property
interest in her education.
ANSWER: Denied.
78. Because of the harassment and Defendants’ deliberate indifference to
the same, C.M.’s grades suffered, her mental health declined, and she was treated
by a physician for anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
ANSWER: Denied as to the allegation of deliberate indifference. In
further answer, the District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as to
remaining allegations and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.
79. She sees a therapist regularly and is prescribed medication, which she
takes daily. Her medical conditions are the product of being repeatedly harassed
and threatened at school because of her race, and the school’s failure to take
reasonable steps to stop the harassment.
80. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the racial harassment and
bullying caused Rob and April Malick to experience extreme emotional and mental
distress. Rob and April were also deprived of their right to control their daughter’s
education.
33
ANSWER: The District denies that it was deliberately indifferent. The
District further states that it lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as
to remaining allegations and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs
Count I
Discrimination/ Hostile Environment in Violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964
(as to Defendants Croswell Lexington School District and the Croswell Lexington
Board of Education)
81. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though they were
fully set forth herein.
ANSWER: No answer required.
82. Title VI prohibits a recipient of federal funds from discriminating on
the basis of race, color, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Public
educational institutions that receive federal funds are subject to this mandate. 34
C.F.R. § 100.13(i) (2000) (defining “recipient” to include any public “agency,
institution, or organization, or other entity ... in any State, to whom Federal financial
assistance is extended”); see also id. § 100.13(g)(2)(ii).
ANSWER: The cited statutes speak for themselves.
83. C.M. is a Black female.
ANSWER: Admitted that the Student is African-American.
84. Cros-Lex is the recipient of federal funds as that term is defined under
Title VI.
34
ANSWER: Admitted that the District, not the Board of Education, is a
sub-recipient of Title VI funding.
85. C.M., as a Cros-Lex student, was the intended beneficiary of and
participant in a program receiving federal funding.
ANSWER: The District denies that Title VI funding is intended for any
specific student but is instead a general funding for the District to use for all
students.
86. C.M. was the subject of intentional discrimination based on her race.
ANSWER: The District denies any intentional discrimination by
administrators or staff, and lacks knowledge or information as to the intention
of individual students that were investigated and disciplined as appropriate for
statements or actions that were harassing or discriminatory.
87. Cros-Lex had actual notice of the discrimination and refused, or
otherwise failed, to remedy the discriminatory conduct. Their conduct amounted to
deliberate indifference.
ANSWER: The District admits notice of reported instances of alleged
discrimination but denies that it refused or otherwise failed to remedy
unknown or unreported conduct or statements. The District further states that
it promptly and completely investigated every reported instance and, where
appropriate, issued discipline.
35
88. The school maintained a policy of deliberate indifference to reports of
bullying and harassment based on race.
ANSWER: Denied.
89. This indifference was the cause of plaintiffs' injuries.
ANSWER: Denied.
Count II
Discrimination/ Hostile Environment Based on the Elliot Larsen Civil
Rights Act (ELCRA) Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.2102 et seq.
(as to all Defendants)
91. Under the ELCRA, C.M. has a right to the full and equal utilization of
educational facilities without discrimination because of race.
ANSWER: The ELCRA speaks for itself.
92. Per § 37.2402, an educational institution shall not discriminate against
an individual in the full utilization of or benefit from the institution, or the services,
activities, or programs provided by the institution because of race, or exclude, expel,
limit, or otherwise discriminate against an individual enrolled as a student in the
terms, conditions, or privileges of the institution, because of race.
ANSWER: The cited statute speaks for itself.
93. C.M. was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on her race.

36
ANSWER: Admitted that the Student and/or the Plaintiffs reported
certain instances of alleged harassment. In further answer, the District states
it promptly and appropriately investigated all reported instances and, where
appropriate, issued discipline and therefore did not unreasonably fail to
respond and was not deliberately indifferent.
94. The harassment had the purpose or effect of substantially interfering
with C.M.’s education or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational
environment, and ultimately of excluding her from the full utilization of the benefit
of the institution.
to the “purpose and effect” of alleged harassment by individual students and,
therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. The District denies the remaining
allegations.
95. Defendants are responsible for the discrimination/ hostile
environment.
ANSWER: Denied.
Count III
Violation of Section 42 USC §1983
Equal Protection Clause

37
97. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs of the
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in that Defendants, without
justification, have intentionally discriminated against C.M. on the basis of her race.
ANSWER: Denied.
98. Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge that bullying,
harassment and discrimination based on race was so severe, pervasive, and
objectively offensive that it created a hostile environment that deprived C.M. of
access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
ANSWER: The District admits notice of reported allegations of
harassment and discrimination by the Student and/or Plaintiffs. The District
denies the remaining allegations.
99. The practices, policies, or customs of Defendants and their
policymakers for responding to such bullying, discrimination and harassment based
on race were so clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances as to give
rise to a reasonable inference that each of the Defendants named in this claim
intended for the bullying, discrimination and harassment to occur or were
deliberately indifferent to it.
38
ANSWER: The District denies that its “practices, policies, or customs”
were unreasonable for the reason that the District promptly and reasonably
responded to all reported instances of alleged harassment or discrimination
and addressed each and thus did not unreasonably fail to respond and was not
deliberately indifferent. The District further denies that intended for any
“bullying, discrimination, [or] harassment” by individual students in the
District to occur.
100. Defendants also failed to adequately train and/or negligently trained
School District staff about policies prohibiting bullying, harassment and
discrimination on the basis of race.
ANSWER: Denied. In further answer, the District states that it staff
received training through Safe Schools specifically on Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion.
101. As a result of the harassment, C.M. was deprived of an equal
opportunity to receive an education.
ANSWER: Denied.
Count IV
Violation of Section 42 USC §1983
Denial of Substantive Due Process

39
103. The actions of all Defendants constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
ANSWER: Denied.
104. These rights include C.M.’s right to education, familial relationship,
and freedom from government actions that shock the conscience, as well as the right
of April and Rob to the familial relationship of their child, including the right to
control her education.
to the claimed “rights” and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. The
District denies that it took any action that “shock[s] the conscience” for the
reason that it appropriately and promptly responded to all allegations
reported by the Student and the Plaintiffs and, where appropriate, issued
discipline in a progressive manner to address the substantiated instances of
harassment or discriminatory comments or statements.
105. Defendants had actual knowledge that the bullying, harassment,
assault and discrimination C.M. suffered because of her race was so severe that it
deprived C.M. of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Substantive
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
40
ANSWER: Denied.
106. Defendants’ actions and omissions, in failing to intervene on behalf of
C.M., were violative of C.M.’s substantive due process rights and those of Rob and
April.
ANSWER: Denied.
107. The practices, policies, or customs of Defendants for responding to
such bullying, harassment, assault, and discrimination were so clearly unreasonable
in light of known circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable inference that each
of the Defendants intended for these events to occur or were deliberately and
callously indifferent to their occurrence.
ANSWER: The District denies that its practices, policies or customs
were unreasonably for the reason that it appropriately and promptly
implemented and enforced its existing anti-harassment and anti-
discrimination Policies by investigating all reported allegations by the Student
and Plaintiffs and, where appropriate, took corrective action by issuing
discipline intended to addressed and respond to the substantiated instances of
harassing or discriminatory comments or statements.
108. Defendants’ actions and omissions reflect their custom of tolerance or
acquiescence of a widespread policy, practice or custom of failing to adequately
respond to bullying, harassment, and assault based on race, as well as a policy of
41
inadequate training or supervision, so as to safeguard the constitutionally protected
rights of Plaintiffs.
ANSWER: Denied.
109. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been damaged,
including without limitation emotional pain and suffering.
to the claimed injuries and, therefore, leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against defendants as follows:
A. LEGAL RELIEF
1. Compensatory, economic, and noneconomic damages in

whatever amount Plaintiffs are found to be entitled;
2. Exemplary damages in whatever amount Plaintiffs are found to

be entitled;
3. Punitive damages in whatever amount Plaintiffs are found to be

entitled;
4. Liquidated damages in whatever amount Plaintiffs are found to

be entitled; and
5. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees.
B. EQUITABLE RELIEF
1. An order from this Court placing Plaintiffs in the position they

would have been in had there been no wrongdoing by
Defendants,
2. An injunction out of this Court prohibiting any further acts of
42
wrongdoing;
3. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees; and
4. Whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the time

of final judgment.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, CROSWELL-LEXINGTON COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS, CROSWELL-LEXINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION, DAN
GILBERTSON, in his individual and official capacity, and KYLE WOOD, in his
individual and official capacity, respectfully request that the Court enter an order
of no cause of action as to all Defendants, together with costs and attorney fees so
wrongfully sustained
Dated: June 28, 2022 /s/ Travis Comstock

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, PC
Timothy Mullins (P28021)
Travis Comstock (P72025)
Attorneys for Defendants
101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Tenth Floor
Troy, MI 48084-5280
Phone: (248) 457-7036
Fax: (248) 404-6311
tmullins@gmhlaw.com
tcomstock@gmhlaw.com
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants, CROSWELL-LEXINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,
CROSWELL-LEXINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION, DAN GILBERTSON, in
his individual and official capacity, and KYLE WOOD, in his individual and
43
official capacity, by and through their attorneys, GIARMARCO, MULLINS &
HORTON, P.C., state their Affirmative Defenses as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to set forth a claim or cause of action upon
which relief can be granted as prayed.
2. Defendants will show that at all times relevant hereto, they were
engaged in a governmental function acting within the scope of their authority and,
as such, are immune or are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for civil
damages as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
3. Defendants will show that at all times relevant hereto, they acted
without malice, ill will and in good faith in the performance of their duties and, as
a result, are immune from suit and recovery by Plaintiffs in this case.
4. Defendants will that at all times the promptly and completely
investigated all reported allegations of racial harassment or discrimination and,
where appropriate following a full investigation, issued proper discipline to any
student determined to have harassed or discriminated.
5. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is conclusory in nature and fails to state a claim
and sufficient facts upon which relief can be granted, as required by the statutory
provisions relied upon in their Complaint.
6. Defendants will show that Plaintiffs have failed to prove any
deprivation of a State or Federal right, nor has Plaintiffs alleged or proven an act of
44
deprivation taken under color of law sufficient to maintain an action based upon
Michigan statutes, including MCL §37.2101 et seq.
7. Defendants will show at the time of trial that they were guided by and
strictly observed all legal duties and obligations imposed by law or otherwise, and
further, that all actions of any of their agents, servants, employees or associates were
careful, prudent, proper and lawful.
8. Defendants will show and rely upon at the time of trial that Plaintiffs,
as a matter of law, are not entitled to exemplary or punitive damages.
9. Defendants will show and rely upon at the time of trial that they were
not subject to liability under the relevant statutes.
10. Defendants will show and rely upon at the time of trial that any
damages complained of were proximately caused by third persons not under the
control of Defendants.
11. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs’
Complaint.
12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the expiration of the applicable Statute
of Limitations.
13. Defendants will show and rely upon at the time of trial that there was
no discriminatory and/or retaliatory intent.
14. Defendants will show and rely upon at the time of trial that at all times,
45
they were acting in good faith for legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons.
15. Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer, including
additional Affirmative Defenses, upon completion of investigation and discovery
of this cause.
/s/ Travis Comstock

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, PC
Attorney for Defendants
DATED: June 28, 2022
RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND
Defendants, HASLETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS and STEVEN L. COOK, by
and through their attorneys, GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C., hereby
rely upon the jury demand previously filed by Plaintiff as to all issues of trial.
/s/ Travis Comstock

DATED: June 28, 2022
46
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
TRAVIS COMSTOCK states that on June 28, 2022, he did serve a copy of
the Answer to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Reliance Upon Jury Demand
via the United States District Court electronic transmission on the aforementioned
date.
/s/ Travis Comstock

101 W. Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor
Troy, MI 48084-5280
(248) 457-7020
tcomstock@gmhlaw.com
P72025
Case 2:22-cv-11126-DML-CI ECF No. 12-1, PageID.95 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
APRIL MALICK, and ROB MALICK,

Individually and as Next Friend for
C.M., a minor child, Case No: 22-cv-11126
Plaintiffs, Hon. David M. Lawson
v. Mag. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr
CROSWELL-LEXINGTON DISTRICT
SCHOOLS and the CROSWELL-LEXINGTON
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
DAN GILBERTSON, in his individual and official capacity,
and KYLE WOOD, in his individual and official capacity.
Defendants.
DEBORAH GORDON LAW Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, PC

Deborah L. Gordon (P27058) Timothy Mullins (P28021)
Elizabeth Marzotto Taylor (P82061) Travis Comstock (P72025)
Sarah Gordon Thomas (P83935) Attorneys for Defendants
Molly Savage (P84472) 101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Tenth Floor
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Troy, MI 48084-5280
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220 Phone: (248) 457-7036
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Fax: (248) 404-6311
(248) 258-2500 tmullins@gmhlaw.com
dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com tcomstock@gmhlaw.com
emarzottotaylor@deborahgordonlaw.com
sthomas@deborahgordonlaw.com
msavage@deborahgordonlaw.com
__________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
A. 19-1278 Malick 2018 police report
B. Email 10-5-21
C. Board of Education November 15, 2021 Resolution
Incident No: 19-001278
SUBMITTED BY:
Officer E. Wurmlinger #221
INFORMATION:
On listed date and time I was contacted by Principal Bethany Davis who requested me to respond to the middle
school to look at a video of two juvenile females that had a confrontation at lunch. The two females were
identified as C M and S D . Both girls are students at Croswell Lexington Middle School.
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE:
I was able to bring up the lunch room camera. It appears on the camera that the two females come into the lunch
room from the west door. C was in front of S . They both stop near a table and appear to be talking to
each other. S pushes C two separate times. C turns and walks away. Also, S pushed
another female student who stayed and talked to her. At that point all students walked away and the confrontation
was over it appeared.
FOLLOW UP:
On September 9th I received an email from the Principal Davis. She requested that I contact C parents. They
had called earlier and would like a return call. I contacted Mrs. Malick and spoke to her about the incident. She
said that she had heard that S D had assaulted another girl and wanted a paper trail in case something
else happens. I gave her the complaint number and advised her that I would do up a short report but it would not
be a detailed report because they were not wanting to prosecute.
STATUS:
Closed
Reported By:
Page 2 of 2 Printed By: SCHOEN, MELANIE JEAN Date: 06/24/2022
Lisa Burns <lburns@croslex.org>
Re: Clara Malick racism

3 messages
11111-om>
Bee: lburns@croslex.org
Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:51 PM
Rob,
The phone has been a recurring issue. Regardless of whom she is texting, she is not allowed to have her phone out in class
and she did not get any work done. In the future if she is being harassed she will need inform myself or Mrs. Drake so we
can take care of the behavior immediately.
Best,
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ms. -
Cro~ Lexington High School
Mathematics Teacher
810-679-1570
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
~ Sender notified by Mailtrack
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:34 PM rob malick <jeddotractor@gmail.com> wrote:

So she gets a detention for for texting me about kids wanting to burning her weave and telling her to pick cotton.
Perhaps, if you had control of you class, this would not have come to this
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11 :57 AM wrote:

Okay, I will keep my eyes and ears open comments. This is the first I'm hearing of this issue in my
class.
I do also want to inform you that I assigned<Ill a detention for her behavior in class yesterday. We were doing quiz
corrections and I made it very clear that if they were off task they would get a o and a detention. She was socializing
and on her phone even after multiple redirections to get on task, put her phone away, and complete the assignment. At
the end of class she still had not written any work down for the assignment.
The phone in particular has been a recurring issue with<Ill in my class, and she receives almost daily reminders
from either myself or Mrs. Drake to put it away.
Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns,

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ms. -
Mathematics Teacher
810-679-1570
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sender notified by
Mailtrack
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11 :28 AM rob malick <jeddotractor@gmail.com> wrote:

We had a meeting with the principal and vp this morning. We aired everything out and it's probably going to get a bit
contentious for a bit. It's really hard to learn if you are always worried about who's going to say the next ignorant
thing. Actually she came home yesterday and said pre-algebra felt like she was in the middle of a klan rally with
• ~ (sp), 4111 ~ . callllll i=alllllll, ~ P I and .4111111. One of them actually told her she
the
needs 'to""go""l,ack to plantation and picksomecotton. ~ e r one said hTsgonna snach her weave and burn
it. 4th hour and lunch are rough for her
Thank you for your understanding, Rob
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11 :08 AM wrote:

Hi Rob,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I do strongly encourage her to inform a teacher/ administrator of any
racially charged language so we can take action against this behavior. I want my classroom and the school to be a
safe environment for everyone.
Thanks again for reaching out,

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ms. -
Cro~ exington High School
Mathematics Teacher
810-679-1570
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sender notified by
Mailtrack
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 8:33 AM rob malick <jeddotractor@gmail.com> wrote:

Good morning,
I hate to have to write this but c:11111 has been enduring a ton of racism in school so far this year. She catches
it a ton in your classroom and Mrs?5"rake helps shen she can. She hears it in the halls always daily and
sometimes hourly. I have instructed her that if she hears it, she will tell the student to stop and immediately find
witness's. Then she will get up out of her seat, notify you and probably walk down to the office. I've already
contacted the principal, vp and superintendent. We've been going down this road for 3 years so now I am
reaching out to the teachers. Thank you for your time and she truly enjoys your class
Rob
Rob
This email is intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Please delete this message if you have received it in error.
Rob
This email is intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Please delete this message if you have received it in error.
Rob
rob malick <jeddotractor@gmail.com> Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1 :02 PM

To: Lisa Burns <lburns@croslex.org>
---------- Forwarded message -------

From: rob malick <jeddotractor@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Re:
To:
She handled it once and apparently not for good. So what I'm hearing is that if the boys want to have a full blown racist
fest in your class and my daughter the victim gets in trouble. Good talk, I'll forward this on to the administration I just got
out of a meeting with Mr Wood and Mrs Burns about your class.
Regards
[Quoted text hidden)
Rob
Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1 :41 PM
Bee: lburns@croslex.org
Rob,
I wrote the detention before I was aware of the situation with the racist comments. If the perpetrators of the racist behavior
make any fmther comments it will be documented and they will have consequences.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ms. -
Mathematics Teacher
810-679-1570
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
~ Sender notified by Mailtrack
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:58 PM rob malick <jeddotractor@gmail.com> wrote:

She handled it once and apparently not for good. So what I'm hearing is that if the boys want to have a full blown racist
fest in your class and my daughter the victim gets in trouble. Good talk, I'll forward this on to the administration I just got
out of a meeting with Mr Wood and Mrs Burns about your class.
Regards
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:52 PM

[Quoted text hidden]
Rob
CROSWELL-LEXINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

COUNTY OF SANILAC, MICHIGAN
A regular meeting of the Board of Education of the Croswell-Lexington Community

Schools, County of Sanilac, State of Michigan (the "School District") was held at the School
District, on November 15, 2021 at 7:00 p.m., local time.
PRESENT: 6 Members: Russell Nowiski, Amie Stillson, Dennis Gardner,
Nathan Butler, Mike Noll, Katie Gordon
ABSENT: 1 Members: _J_o_e_V_it_a_l_e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
RESOLUTION
The following preamble and resolution were offered by -'-S_t1_·1_1--'s-'o_n_ _ _ _ _ _ and
supported by Nowiski
WHEREAS, the Croswell-Lexington Community Schools Board of Education

unequivocally stands against all forms of unlawful discrimination, including but not limited to
discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, height, weight and marital status;
WHEREAS , the Board of Education has previously adopted a nondiscrimination policy,

Policy Number 2450, in which the Board of Education has reaffirmed commitment to compliance
with the anti-discrimination laws at the Federal and State level;
WHEREAS, the Board of Education finds that unlawful discrimination, left unaddressed,
creates a host of deleterious effects that deprive students of equal access to education and poison
the community; and
WHEREAS, Croswell-Lexington Community Schools is committed to providing

education to its students in an environment free of the toxic effects of unlawful discrimination.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE CROSWELL-LEXINGTON COMMUNITY

SCHOOLS, COUNTY OF SANILAC, MICHIGAN THAT:
1. The Croswell-Lexington Community Schools Board of Education unequivocally

stands against racism, and all forms of unlawful discrimination.
2. The Board of Education denounces and has prohibited any unlawful discriminatory
conduct, including any retaliation for the reporting of unlawful discriminatory
conduct, by any Croswell-Lexington stakeholder, including all students, volunteers,
staff, administration, contractors and members of the Board of Education.
3. The Board of Education hereby re-iterates and republishes its Policy Number 2450,
Nondiscrimination.
4. Any instance of unlawful discriminatory conduct appropriately reported, or

otherwise coming to the attention of personnel who are empowered to address
same, that is found to have occuned, or retaliation based on repo1ting of unlawful
discriminatory conduct, shall be dealt with in the appropriate manner, after
appropriate investigation, and the aim of addressing such conduct shall be to make
the conduct cease, appropriately remediate any deleterious impact of the conduct,
and educate any transgressor and, by extension, the community at large, that
unlawful discriminatory conduct is illegal and harmful.
5. All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions
of this Resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.
Ayes: Stillson, Noll, Butler, Gardner, Nowiski, Gordon
Nays:
RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED.
D~a&~
Dennis GardUr
Acting Secretary, Board of Education
The undersigned duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Board of Education of the
Croswell-Lexington Community Schools, County of Sanilac, State of Michigan, hereby certifies
that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the Board at a regular
meeting held on November 15, 2021, the original of which is a part of the Board's minutes and
further certifies that notice of the meeting was given to the public pursuant to the provisions of the
Open Meetings Act, Act 267, Public Acts of Michigan, 1976, as amended.
~~~
Dennis GardUr
Acting Secretary, Board of Education

Cros-Lex Reply To Malick Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cros-Lex Reply To Malick Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:22-cv-11126-DML-CI ECF No. 12, PageID.

48 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

APRIL MALICK, and ROB MALICK,

Plaintiffs, Hon. David M. Lawson

v. Mag. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr

DEBORAH GORDON LAW Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, PC

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants, Croswell-Lexington Community Schools,1 Croswell- Lexington

capacities (collectively “the District”), by and through their counsel,

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C., answers the Plaintiffs’ Complaint,

and in support states as follows:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28

2. The Plaintiffs reside in the County of Sanilac, Michigan.

ANSWER: The District admits that the Plaintiffs were residents of

their current county of residence.

3. Defendants Croswell-Lexington Board of Education and Croswell-

County of Sanilac, Michigan.

4. Cros-Lex School District and Cros-Lex Board of Education are the

recipient of federal funds as that term is defined under Title VI.

ANSWER: Admitted that Defendant Croswell-Lexington Community

Schools is a sub-recipient of Title VI funding. Denied that the Croswell-

Lexington Board of Education receives Title VI funding.

as the Principal of Cros-Lex High School.

6. Defendant Dan Gilbertson, at all times material to this action, has

served as the Superintendent of Schools for Cros-Lex.

ANSWER: Admitted, but in further answer the District states that

Superintendent Dan Gilbertson is currently the Superintendent of another

ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge on which to form an answer as

Student is African-American and that the Plaintiffs are Caucasian.

8. C.M. was one of three Black students in a student population of 2,053

in the Cros-Lex school district.

ANSWER: Denied. In further answer, the District states that as of

February 9, 2022 it had a total of 2,038 students of which 8 identified as

transferred into the District on November 6, 2018. She then disenrolled on

October 6, 2020 until re-enrolling on August 8, 2021.

10. C.M. endured racial harassment and discrimination from other

students, faculty and staff, since the time of her enrollment.

ANSWER: Admitted that the Student and Plaintiffs allege harassment

and discrimination herein but denied as to unreported instances of harassment

instances of such were promptly and completely investigated and, as

appropriate, discipline was issued.

district due to racial discrimination.

ANSWER: Admitted that the Plaintiffs elected to have the Student

B. C.M. is Bullied and Harassed at Cros-Lex Because she is Black

this to the School Board and Defendant Gilbertson.

ANSWER: Denied that any alleged assault occurred in September of

reported assault made by the Plaintiffs in September of 2019.

13. The Malicks also filed a police report as to the assault.

ANSWER: Admitted that the Plaintiffs filed a police report on or about

did not want to press charges. (Id.)

ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as

to the allegation of “relentless[ ] bully[ing]”. In further answer, the District

states that any reported incidents of bullying, harassment, or name calling

were promptly and fully investigated by the Middle School Administration.

occurred, and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.

homeschool C.M. for her eighth-grade year.

ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief as

to the Plaintiffs’ intent or motivation for electing to homeschool the Student,

and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.

ANSWER: The District lacks knowledge upon which to form a belief

and when, and thus leaves the Plaintiffs to their proofs.