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
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 holding that material issue of fact existed concerning whether employer orally promised to discharge employee only for cause holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation 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 holding no issue of material fact as to whether defendant was volunteer because he received no compensation