issued Hughes a right to sue letter. Hughes, however, waived her right to sue under Title VII because she did not file this lawsuit within the time permitted. Ap-pellees' Br. at 61 n. 9. Hughes' claim under the North Carolina Constitution similarly fails. A claimant whose state constitutional rights have been offended may pursue an action directly under the North Carolina Constitution only “[i]n the absence of an adequate state remedy.” Corum v. University of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 493, 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992). In this case, Hughes has an adequate state remedy in her action for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143-422.2. See Alt v. Parker, 112 N.C.App. 307, 435 S.E.2d 773, 779 (1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 335 N.C. 766, 442 S.E.2d 507
holding that claimant could not maintain direct action under article i  19 because hehad adequate state remedies holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding that deprivation of personal property does not violate the constitution if there are adequate state remedies available