of perspective between administrative intervention and judicial adjudication, the court ruled that employment discrimination claims filed in court are “governed by the three-year period of limitations ... applicable to ‘an action to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute!.]’ ” Id., 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d at 93 (quoting N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214 (McKinney 2003)). Ac cordingly, as in Murphy, I find that the administrative limitations period found in the CADA does not apply to employment discrimination claims that are not brought before the CCRC. Additionally, the Tenth Circuit has indicated that claims for wrongful discharge are the most appropriate analogue to ERISA 510 actions. See Myers v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 26 Fed.Appx. 855, 864 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Woods v. Halliburton Co., 49 Fed.Appx. 827,
holding that under kansas law a wrongful discharge claim is the most appropriate analogue to erisa 510 claims and applying a twoyear limitations period holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims holding that the oneyear statute of limitations for a tort action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy applied to the plaintiffs erisa  510 claim holding kansas law provides twoyear statute of limitations for  1983 actions measured from date cause of action arose holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law