Button v. B.R.U.C.C.S.N

7 Citing cases

  1. One v. CVS Pharm.

    18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2024)

    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.

  2. Bone v. Univ. of N.C. Health Care Sys.

    1:18cv994 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 2022)

    “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)).

  3. Updike v. City of Gresham

    99 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (D. Or. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    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

  4. Aki. v. University of California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

    74 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 17 times
    Stating the plaintiff "could not use the mere failure to accommodate as an act or omission supporting a retaliation claim, otherwise ever alleged failure to accommodate would be deemed a retaliatory act"

    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.

  5. Mark H. v. Hamamoto

    CIVIL 00-00282 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2012)

    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.

  6. Mark H. v. Hamamoto

    CIVIL 00-00282 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Jan. 31, 2012)

    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.

  7. Mark H. v. Hamamoto

    849 F. Supp. 2d 990 (D. Haw. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    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.