With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of forced termination,' or that 'the employer's conduct ... [was] motivated by a desire to avoid subjecting its actions to the scrutiny of a termination-related hearing.’ ” 804 F.2d 327, 333 (5th Cir.1986) (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Fowler, 799 F.2d at 981); see also Holden v. Knight, 155 Fed.Appx. 735, 739 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished) (explaining that we "ha[ve] made clear that a plaintiff may make out a cognizable claim when he alleges particular facts showing that he found himself between the Scylla of voluntary resignation and the Charybdis of forced termination” without discussing the need to show a motive to avoid pre-termination procedures (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); but see Rutland v. Pepper, 404 F.3d 921, 922-23 (5th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). While our rule of orderliness requires us to

A: holding that defendant interfered with plaintiffs right when the employer forced her to choose between resignation and working without leave
B: holding that plaintiff failed to establish a constructive discharge claim because she did not assert that her employer was motivated by a desire to avoid pretermination procedures without considering whether plaintiff could alternatively allege only that she was forced to choose between resignation and termination
C: holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position
D: holding that because the plaintiff did not allege facts indicating what specific medical information she provided to dps she failed to state a constitutional claim
B.