Opinion ID: 794054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is this an important issue of state law?

Text: 27 This unresolved issue of New York law raises legal and policy issues that we believe are best resolved by the New York Court of Appeals. As Morris has argued, the standards for constructive discharge in federal employment discrimination may, to some extent, derive from a premeditated policy choice to encourage employees to stay in the employment relationship as long as possible and try to work out their discrimination claims within the work setting and through administrative processes. See, e.g., Halbrook v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 735 F.Supp. 121, 127 (S.D.N.Y.1990) ([E]ven where Title VII clearly outlaws discriminatory practices, the standard remedy under the Act is for an employee to stay and fight.); Nobler v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 715 F.Supp. 570, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ([T]he employee should remain on the job and attack the alleged discrimination from within the context of the employment relationship in order to give the employer an opportunity to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination.). Whether the policy considerations that undergird constructive discharge in the employment discrimination context are at all applicable to the New York common law employee choice doctrine context is a question we believe is best left to the New York Court of Appeals in the first instance. 28