Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-13-05105/USCOURTS-caDC-13-05105-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-5105 September Term, 2015

1:07-cv-00187-RMC

Filed On: July 5, 2016

Rajnikant Patel,

Appellant

v.

Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans

Affairs,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 18, 2013

be affirmed. On appeal, appellant makes no argument challenging the grounds on

which the district court disposed of his claims of discrimination on the basis of age, race,

and religion. See U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir.

2004) (argument not made on appeal is deemed waived).

With respect to appellant’s claims of discrimination on the basis of gender and

national origin under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., appellee has stated a legitimate reason

for denying appellant’s application for promotion. Appellant challenges the proffered

reason only on the ground that the employees selected for promotion lacked a required

professional certification; however, appellant has failed to demonstrate that medical

technologists employed by appellee were required to possess any professional

certification at the time he was denied promotion. We therefore affirm the grant of

summary judgment with regard to those claims because appellant has failed to produce

evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that appellee’s asserted

non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason for failing to promote him, and that

appellee intentionally discriminated against him. See Gilbert v. Napolitano, 670 F.3d

258, 261 (D.C. Cir.2012).

USCA Case #13-5105 Document #1622982 Filed: 07/05/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-5105 September Term, 2015

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

By: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #13-5105 Document #1622982 Filed: 07/05/2016 Page 2 of 2