plaintiffs ERISA claim accrued. Even when relying on an analogous state statute of limitations, federal courts look to federal common law for purposes of deciphering the accrual date of a cause of action under a federal statute. See Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1261, 111 S.Ct. 2916, 115 L.Ed.2d 1079 (1991). In employment discrimination cases, the injury arises when the adverse employment action is communicated to the plaintiff, not when the ill effects of the decision are felt by the plaintiff. Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 260, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980). Accrual is not delayed until the employee’s discovery of the alleged unlawful nature of the decision. Id; Cf. Marquardt, 1994 WL 171698, at *5 (<HOLDING>) (citing Johnston, 218 Kan. at 548, 545 P.2d
holding that limitations period on employment discrimination claim triggered on date of discharge not on date of discovery of discriminatory intent holding that unlike malicious prosecution claim false arrest claim accrues on the date of the arrest recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that the employers discharge of the plaintiff four months after the plaintiff filed a discrimination claim is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge holding retaliatory discharge claim accrues on the date plaintiff receives notice of termination