at 510-12. Citing an Eighth Circuit case, we stated that “conditions will not be considered intolerable unless the employer has been given a reasonable chance to resolve the problem.” Id. at 511. But we balanced this observation with the contrapuntal declaration in the next sentence, stating, “On the other hand, an employee need not stay if he or she reasonably believes there is no possibility the employer will respond fairly.” Id. Thus, Van Meter is ambiguous on the question of whether an employee suffering intolerable discrimination must remain on the job while the employer investigates. In any event, Van Meter is not entitled to stare decisis because the parties agreed on the elements of constructive discharge in their briefs before the court. See, e.g., Hemingway, 734 F.3d at 335 (<HOLDING>); Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 49 (finding certain
holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding previous case when no one challenged the issue could not be precedent on the issue holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that remand was meaningless on one issue but still remanding the case to the agency on another issue