the evidence presented that a reasonable person would, if in Rhoads’s position, feel compelled to resign.” In the instant action, the facts are even more compelling for a finding that the resignation was voluntary than in Rhoads in that all four of the relevant inquiry elements of the voluntariness test are met here. Although Director Howard presented Plaintiff only with a choice between resignation and termination, Plaintiffs admitted assault conviction gave Howard good cause to believe that Plaintiff was subject to termination. That is, although Plaintiff was not ultimately terminated pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.39, Howard reasonably believed that that statute was applicable to Plaintiff and that it would have required Plaintiff s termination based upon Plainti XIS 86385, at *20 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, it is not disputed that Plaintiff
holding that the next morning reasonable holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement holding that the bia rule is reasonable