than the employee’s former status. For example, we have held that an employee was constructively discharged when he reasonably believed his termination or demotion was imminent, Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 305 F.3d 545, 554 (6th Cir.2002) (termination); Saroli v. Automation and Modular Components, Inc., 405 F.3d 446, 452 (6th Cir.2005) (demotion), and when the employer isolated the employee by instructing other employees not to talk or interact with him, Moore v. KUKA Welding Sys. and Robot Corp., 171 F.3d 1073, 1080-81 (6th Cir.1999). On the other hand, the manner in which an employer criticizes an employee’s job performance, such as attendance, is insufficient to establish constructive discharge. Smith, 376 F.3d at 534. See also Agnew v. BASF Corp., 286 F.3d 307 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Caslin v. Gen. Elec. Co., 696 F.2d 45, 47
holding denial of deserved rise in performance rating may be actionable holding defendants perceived demotion from change of duties does not constitute constructive discharge as a matter of law holding that a low performance rating does not constitute constructive discharge holding the claim of constructive discharge does not accrue until an employee resigns recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard