Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): chance to work out a problem.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Brenneman v. Famous Dave’s of Am., Inc., 507 F.3d 1139, 1144 (8th Cir. 2007)); Aryain v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LP, 534 F.3d 473, 482 (5th Cir. 2008) (concluding employee could not recover because she “assumed the worst and made no effort to allow Wal-Mart the opportunity to remedy the problems she identified”); Barker v. YMCA of Racine, 18 Fed.Appx. 394, 399 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Employees who quit without giving their employer a reasonable chance to resolve a problem have not been constructively discharged. Here, Ms. Barker did not try to resolve her work problems—she merely walked away from her job without notice .... ” (Citation omitted.)); Yearous v. Niobrara Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 128 F.3d 1351, 1357 (10th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Kilgore v. Thompson & Brock Mgmt., Inc., 93 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no constructive discharge when plaintiffs only waited brief time before resigning and unreasonably refused to explore any option short of resignation (B) holding that in order to sustain an action for constructive discharge the plaintiff must show that the conduct resulting in the resignation violated a virginia public policy embodied in an existing statute (C) holding claim accrued when employee tendered letter of resignation not when resignation became effective (D) holding that constructive discharge may qualify as a tangible employment action depriving employer of right to assert affirmative defense when a supervisors official act precipitates the constructive discharge (E) recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard
Output (English): recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard