Circuit has instructed District Courts to dismiss such claims as a matter of law “... unless evidence is sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to infer that the employer created conditions so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign.” Kader v. Paper Software Inc., 111 F.3d 337, 341 (2d Cir.1997). Martson alleges in his answer that he believes that “Richter created a supervisory position for Patterson over Martson with the intent of causing Martson’s employment conditions to become untenable and causing him to leave IBM.” Having a new supervisor brought in, without more, clearly does not rise to the level of intoler-ability required to sustain a constructive discharge claim. See e.g., Stetson v. NYNEX Service Co., 995 F.2d 355 (2d Cir.1993). (<HOLDING>); Ternullo v. Reno, 8 F.Supp.2d 186
holding defendants belief that his work was unfairly criticized is not sufficient for constructive discharge holding that nonselection for a desirable position assignment to undesirable duties sharing a small office and being criticized did not make out a hostile work environment causing constructive discharge holding that constructive discharge may qualify as a tangible employment action depriving employer of right to assert affirmative defense when a supervisors official act precipitates the constructive discharge recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him