With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Water Dist. No. 1, 972 F.2d 1160, 1164 (10th Cir.1992). In this case, the plaintiff began to do things that only project managers are allowed to do, such as approving submittals from contractors, Akhund Dep. [Dckt. #40-5], approving or rejecting drawings, id. at 36-37, and making modifications to contracts, Pak Dep. at 16, 22, 26. Mr. Patel had not objected to or barred the plaintiff from doing these things. Pak Dep. [Dckt. # 43-2] at 59. Indeed, he had allowed him leeway to do so. Id. Based on these facts, a re us job responsibilities, including managing others, were reduced, the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to leave the issue of whether he was constructively discharged as a question for the jury. See Boyle v. HSBC Bank, USA Inc., 2010 WL 235001, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>); Herrmann v. BCS Life Ins. Co., 1990 WL

A: holding employee resigned and was not constructively discharged because there was no evidence that employer deliberately created working conditions that led to her resignation
B: holding in the alternative that plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that but for plaintiffs age he would not have been constructively discharged where plaintiff was asked on more than one occasion when he was going to retire emphasis in original
C: holding that because the plaintiff no longer managed others and had other job responsibilities reduced there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that he had been constructively discharged
D: holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff
C.