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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant John Schwarzkopf, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Upon de novo review, Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2014), we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sikorsky because the record does not raise a triable issue of fact supporting Schwarzkopf's disability-discrimination claims.1

Schwarzkopf's position was eliminated pursuant to a reduction in force; other employees characterized as disabled by Schwarzkopf were retained; and the company's nondiscriminatory metrics for evaluating performance supported Schwarzkopf's termination. See id. at 168; see generally Viola v. Philips Med. Sys. of N. Am., 42 F.3d 712 (2d Cir. 1994).

We reject any invitation to second-guess Sikorsky's personnel decisions because "we do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity's business decisions." Delaney, 766 F.3d at 169 (internal quotation marks omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Schwarzkopf's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.