With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rev. at 1404, the employer’s clear breach of the employment contract, the employer’s benefit in terms of enhanced chances of mitigation and the public’s interest in “the need for stability in labor relations,” Pierce, 84 N.J. at 66, plaintiff retains his cause of action for breach of contract. We are confident that in the modern employment context where there is a position-specific employment contract and an employee resigns after his employer without justification forces that employee to choose from among demotion, termination or resignation, it must be concluded that the employer remains subject to liability for that breach unless facts clearly demonstrate a fairly bargained release of the employer. See also cf. Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F.2A 885, 887-89 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Annotation, “Circumstances in Title VII

A: holding that the but for test applied in a mixed motive case under the national labor relations act
B: recognizing constructive discharge where employer rather than acting directly deliberately makes employees working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would be forced into involuntary resignation
C: holding ports authority was not an employer subject to the jurisdiction of the national labor relations board
D: recognizing doctrine of constructive discharge under federal civil rights act and national labor relations act where employer knowingly permits working conditions to become so intolerable that a reasonable person subject to them would resign
D.