conditions of her employment and makes an affirmative decision to leave, a subsequent charge of constructive discharge will not be upheld absent the employer’s intentional imposition of intolerable work conditions, not present herein. As the relevant precedents make clear, the facts before this Court do not embody a constructive discharge. See, e.g., Ternullo v. Reno, 8 F.Supp.2d 186, 193 (N.D.N.Y.1998) (granting summary judgment where plaintiffs claims of constructive discharge were" predicated on (1) denial of promotions; (2) criticism of plaintiffs work performance; (3) informal reprimands; and (4) alterations in plaintiffs responsibilities or assignments, which taken together were legally insufficient); Christopher-Ketchum v. Agway Energy Prod., 988 F.Supp. 610, 616 (N.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); Chisolm v. Kidder, Peabody Asset Management,
holding that a failure to make out a hostile work environment claim effectively disposes of the constructive discharge claim as well holding that a claim of constructive discharge requires a showing of harassment that is more severe and pervasive than that required to show a hostile work environment holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard