739 F.Supp. 906, 911-13 (S.D.N.Y.1990). A claim accrues under § 1140 when the employer decides to discharge an employee and communicates that decision to him. Tolle, 977 F.2d at 1138. Barnett was terminated on or about April 25,1991 according to the complaint, and she has conceded that her claim accrued no later than this date. Memo in Opp. at 5. IBM correctly argues that the state law claim most analogous to a wrongful discharge claim under § 1140 is a claim for wrongful discharge or employment discrimination. See Byrd v. MacPapers, Inc., 961 F.2d 157, 159 (11th Cir.1992); McClure v. Zoecon, Inc., 936 F.2d 777, 778 (5th Cir.1991) (“[NJearly all [courts] have construed § 510 claims as wrongful discharge or employment discrimination claims.”) (citations omitted); Held, 912 F.2d at 1205 (<HOLDING>). In particular, a claim for discharge in
holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that  1522 is the most analogous limitations period for  1983 actions holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly holding that a fraud claim premised on thirdparty reliance raises a cognizable claim under new york law