CVS Health has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon its review of the landmark disability rights case, after a large number of complaints have highlighted the possibility that the appeal may overturn the legal protection that prohibits disability discrimination.

A lawsuit filed by a group of people living with HIV seeking class action status will now be proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously ruled that five patients’ claims for different effects under the federal disability law can continue. By asking the Supreme Court to end its investigation, CVS no longer has the opportunity to redefine federal law, although cases against this group of patients will continue.

The 2018 case alleges that CVS’s package of requirements for all customers to obtain prescriptions from CVS mail-order pharmacies or retail pharmacists threatens the health and privacy of people living with HIV and violates federal law. Patients receive drug benefits through their employers, and they have a contract with CVS to manage their claims.

CVS referred questions about the case to its press release on Thursday, which touted the establishment of new partnerships with four disability rights organizations, including the National Independent Living Council and Judge David L. Bazelon Mental Health Law Center.

“Our agreement to work with the disabled community to find policy solutions will help protect affordable health plans that are equally applicable to all members,” CVS senior vice president and chief diversity officer of workforce strategy David Casey in News Zhong said release.

CVS asked the Supreme Court to review the case in March, questioning whether the Federal Discrimination Act and Affordable Care Act protect individuals who have been harmed by unintentional discrimination policies. In court documents, the retail giant argued that discovering discrimination through different effects would “subvert national insurance plans and soaring health care costs.”The Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AIDS Health Foundation and other groups have Support behind the patient, Wrote that the patient guidance practice of the pharmacy welfare manager is illegal.

The case may redefine the precedent established in 1985. In this case, the Supreme Court held that “it is meaningless to limit the protection of disability rights to intentional discrimination because of the nature of disability discrimination,” said Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon’s director of policy and legal advocacy: This is largely not based on intention itself, but on carelessness. ”

The case defined impact rather than intended to be important in accordance with the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which is an extension of the ACA.

Mathis said the nature of the company’s collaboration with the Bazelon Center and other groups “will become clearer as we move forward.”

National Center for Independent Living Policy Director Lindsay Baran (Lindsay Baran) said that through this new initiative, CVS is looking for ways to resolve this issue without involving the courts. Baran said that since late October, the organization has been discussing the case with CVS and hopes to continue the dialogue on this issue and other disability accessibility issues that the company has in the future.

“We can really show them how different this case is from their clear commitment to the disabled community,” Baran said. “A lot of disability discrimination is due to seemingly neutral policies and practices, and I think this is part of what makes this case so dangerous.”