Deshpande v. Collins

── Deshpande v. Collins ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General 25-142-cv Deshpande v. Collins UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of May, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ Satish K. Deshpande, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-142 Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: SATISH K. DESHPANDE, pro se, Scarsdale, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: MARK OSMOND, Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McCarthy, M.J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Satish K. Deshpande, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Denis R. McDonough, Secretary for the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”), in Deshpande’s Title VII retaliation action. Deshpande alleged that he was not hired as a physician at a VA hospital in retaliation for previously filing discrimination cases against his former employers. The district court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Deshpande failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and that, in any event, the Secretary articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Deshpande’s non-selection and Deshpande failed 2 to put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this reason was pretextual. Deshpande v. McDonough, 22 Civ. 8097 (JCM), 2024 WL 5226856 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2024). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment after construing all evidence, and drawing all reasonable inferences, in favor of the non-moving party.” Sotomayor v. City of N.Y., 713 F.3d 163, 164 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”