With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the opportunity to argue to a jury that the response was not prompt enough (given all the circumstances), and thus made it not “proper” for some reason[.]”); Bernard v. Calhoon Meba Eng’g Sch., 309 F.Supp.2d 732, 740 (D.Md.2004) (“Summary judgment will be denied if reasonable minds could differ as to whether the [employer’s] remedial action was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” (Citations and internal quotation signals omitted.)' (Alteration in original.)). We recognize that there may be situations in which a court could conclude that an employer’s response was sufficient as a matter of law because no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the employer’s response was inadequate. See, e.g., Walton v. Johnson & Johnson Servs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1272, 1288-89 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). However, if reasonable minds could differ as

A: holding that material issue of fact existed concerning whether employer orally promised to discharge employee only for cause
B: holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation
C: holding case tried on stipulated facts where order indicated that the parties agreed during telephone hearing with the court that no material issue of fact existed
D: holding that no issue of material fact existed as to the reasonableness of an employers response where the offending employee was promptly suspended and fired
D.