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

Heading: The district court's analysis of the employee choice doctrine

Text: 20 The district court correctly recognized that the New York common law employee choice doctrine controls and that the dispositive question was whether Morris quit or was fired. See Morris, 2005 WL 167608, at ; cf. Lucente, 310 F.3d at 254. As previously noted, the district court ultimately analyzed this question by borrowing the constructive discharge standard from federal employment discrimination law, 3 citing IBM v. Martson, 37 F.Supp.2d 613 (S.D.N.Y.1999), in support of this approach. See Morris, 2005 WL 167608, at . 4 21 Unfortunately, neither the New York Court of Appeals, nor any other New York state court, has provided guidance on what legal test courts should apply when an employee claims that he was involuntarily terminated and that the employee choice doctrine should not apply. 5 In light of this lacuna, we explore whether certification is warranted. 22