Pfeiffer, 917 F.2d at 789. Each of the analogous Title IX cases involved a plaintiff who had expressly sought relief under Title IX. Id. (citing Bougher, 713 F.Supp. 139, 146; Mabry v. State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. & Occupational Ed., 597 F.Supp. 1235, 1239 (D.Colo.1984), aff'd on other grounds, 813 F.2d 311 (10th Cir.1987)). The Pfeiffer decision also cited two non-Title IX cases that precluded § 1983 claims even though the plaintiff had not brought statutory claims into which the constitutional claims could be subsumed. Id. (citing Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1011-12, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984) (discussing the Education of the Handicapped Act, 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.); Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 868 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)). The crucial consideration in the preclusion
holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that plaintiff state employees contractual right to promotion was not protected by constitutional guarantee of substantive due process because right was not fundamental holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury holding that plaintiff may not cavalierly bypass the comprehensive process fashioned by congress in the adea by merely asserting a violation of a constitutional right rather than the statutory right recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights