With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and he is still employed as Division Chief. The doctrine applies to an employee’s reasonable decision to quit rather than endure intolerable conditions. See, e.g., Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir.2007) (“Under the constructive discharge doctrine, an employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is assimilated to a formal discharge for remedial purposes.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no cognizable right to stay put, as Carleton had done for four years at the time of suit, yet sue for constructive discharge or to prevent a constructive discharge from happening. Because Carleton did not feel compelled to resign by his working conditions, no constructive discharge claim exists and no relief could be granted. Id. at 1185 (<HOLDING>). II Carleton’s equal protection claim was

A: holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
B: holding that by itself three and onehalf months was insufficient to prove causation
C: holding that charges for work done less than five months before an idea due process hearing were reasonable
D: holding that continuing to work for five months before deciding to retire and three months thereafter as a matter of law   are not the actions of someone who finds his working conditions so intolerable that he felt compelled to resign
D.