Baylink

MEMORANDUM *

David Baylink, M.D. (“Baylink”), appeals the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in favor of his former employer the Secretary of Veteran Affairs (the “VA”) on his claims of retaliation and constructive discharge. Baylink alleged that he was unlawfully retaliated against because of his administrative and EEO complaints alleging, among other things, age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and that he was constructively discharged from his employment with the VA. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and we do not recount them here, except as necessary for understanding of our disposition. We have jurisdic *70 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and review its conclusions of law de novo. Star v. West, 237 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir.2001). “Clear error review is significantly deferential, and we must accept the district court’s factual findings absent a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Gust, 405 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “So long…