This is not sufficient action. See Button v. Board of Regents of University and Community College System of Nevada, 289 Fed.Appx. 964, 968 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is not enough that the Board took some action-in Duvall the [defendant] court made some effort to accommodate, but we held that a jury could find this effort both insufficient and deliberate”). Moreover, Plaintiffs also allege that CVS, in fact, provided “financial inducements” to employers to encourage them to select The Program and forego the HIV/AIDS medication carve-out. TAC ¶ 2.
“Th[e deliberate-indifference] inquiry is nuanced and fact-intensive - precisely the province of the jury.” Button v. Board of Regents of Univ., 289 Fed.Appx. 964, 968 (9th Cir. 2008); accord Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Whether a local government entity has displayed a policy of deliberate indifference is generally a question for the jury.” (affirming jury's finding of deliberate indifference for Section 1983 claim)).
A denial of a request for accommodation without investigation is sufficient to survive summary judgment on the question of deliberate indifference. Button v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nevada, 289 Fed.Appx. 964, 968 (9th Cir.2008) ; Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1139–41. 3. Applicable Regulations
The inquiry into deliberate indifference is “nuanced and fact-intensive—precisely the province of the jury.” Button v. Bd. of Regents of Univ., 289 Fed.Appx. 964, 968 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, the disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the issue of compensatory damages, and the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion as it pertains to Plaintiff's damage claims.
A reasonable jury, weighing the evidence at trial, could possibly find that the DOE was not deliberately indifferent. See Button v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. & Cmty Coll. Sys. of Nev., No. 06-16231, 289 Fed. Appx. 964 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2008) ("It is not enough that the Board took some action—in Duvall the court made some effort to accommodate, but we held that a jury could find this effort both insufficient and deliberate. This inquiry is nuanced and fact-intensive — precisely the province of the jury.
A reasonable jury, weighing the evidence at trial, could possibly find that the DOE was not deliberately indifferent. See Button v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. & Cmty Coll. Sys. of Nev., No. 06-16231, 289 Fed. Appx. 964 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2008) ("It is not enough that the Board took some action - in Duvall the court made some effort to accommodate, but we held that a jury could find this effort both insufficient and deliberate. This inquiry is nuanced and fact-intensive -precisely the province of the jury.
A reasonable jury, weighing the evidence at trial, could possibly find that the DOE was not deliberately indifferent. See Button v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 289 Fed.Appx. 964 (9th Cir.2008) (“It is not enough that the Board took some action—in Duvall the court made some effort to accommodate, but we held that a jury could find this effort both insufficient and deliberate. This inquiry is nuanced and fact-intensive—precisely the province of the jury.