The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the ca ption as set forth above
. * 10
- 15 0- cv C h ristine D u ttwe ill e r v . E a g le J a n ito ria l In c ., et a l. U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O RD E R

D O N O T H A V E P RE C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T ION TO A SUMM ARY O RDER FI LED ON OR AF TER JANUARY 1, 2007 , IS P ERMI TTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FED ER

AL RUL E OF A PP EL LA TE PROCE DU RE 32 .1 AN D THIS COUR T’S L OCAL RUL E 32. 1.1 . WH EN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER I N A D O C UMENT F ILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MU S T C IT E E IT HE R

T HE FE D E R

A L APP EN D IX

OR A N E L E C T R ON IC D A T A BA S E ( WI T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ” ) . APA R T Y C I T I N G A S U M M A R

YO RD E R

M U S T S E R

V E AC OP Y OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NO T REPRESENTED B Y COUNSEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 28 day th of January , two thousand eleve n. Pr e se nt: J OHN M. WAL KER, J R.,

CH ES TERJ . S TRAUB, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges
.

________________________________________________ CH RI STI NE DU TT WEI L L ER, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No. 10-150-c v UPSTATE BUIL DI

NG MAI NTENAN CE COMPANI ES, I NC., EAGL E J ANI TORIAL SERVI CES, I

NC., De fe nd an ts , EA GL E JAN I TO RIAL

I NC ., EA GL E B UI L DI

NGSER VI CES I NC ., L OC AL

20 0 U NI TE D SE RV I CE E MPL OY EE S I NTERNATI ONAL

UNI ON, AF L -CI O, Defendants-A

ppellees
. *

________________________________________________2

F or Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt: W O O D RU FF L EE C A RR O LL , Carroll & Carroll L awyers

PC, S y rac use, N.Y. For Def endant- Appellee L ocal 200 Un ite d Se rv ic e Em

plo ye e s International Union, AFL -CI O: M AI R EA D E. C ONNOR , L aw Of fice s of Maire ad E. Connor, PL L C, Sy

rac use, N.Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of New Y ork (Suddaby , J. ). ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiff-Appellant Christine Duttweiller a ppeals fr om a Dec ember

22, 2009 judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Norther n District of Ne w York ( Suddaby , J. ) dismissing her c omplaint in it s entirety . Duttweiller c ommenced this ac tion ag ainst her f ormer union, Def endant- Appellee L ocal 200 United Ser vice Employees I

nternational Union, AFL -CI O (the

“ Un ion ” ), and

he r f or me r e mpl oye r, De fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s E a g le Jani toria l Inc . a nd Ea g le BuildingService s Inc. (c ollectively , “Ea g le”) , asser ting va rious claims arisingfrom her termination by

Eag le in J anuar

y 2005. In her c orre cted a

nd amende d complaint, she alleg es, inter ali a , that the Union violated its duty of fa ir repr esentation impl ied under the National L abor Re latio ns Ac t, 2 9 U .S. C. § 15 9( a ), that E a g le br e a c he d it s c oll e c tiv e ba rg a ini nga g re e me nt w ith the Union, and that both the Union a nd Eag le fa iled to acc ommodate her alleg ed disability

and discriminated ag ainst her in violation of the Ame rica ns with Disabiliti es Ac t of 1990 (“A DA”) , 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. , and the Ne w York State Human Rights L aw ( “NYSHRL ”), N .Y. Ex ec. L aw § 290 et seq. The Union a nd Eag le sepa

rate ly moved for summar

y judgme nt, and thePursuant to the district court’s brie fingschedule , which had a lrea dy been e x tended at 1 Duttw e ill e r’ s r e qu e st a

nd wh ic h in dic ate d th at no fu rt he r e xten sio ns wo uld

be c on sid e re d, a ll answe ringpaper s were to be filed by no later tha

n September 2, 2008. 3 district court grante d those motions in decisions and orders r espec tively dated June 4, 2009 and Dec ember

22, 2009. We assume the par ties’s familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, the r emaining pr oc e dura l hi sto ry , a

nd the iss ue s p re se nte d o n a pp e a l.

“ We r e vie w a

g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo , examining the evide nce in the light most favora

ble to, and dra

wingall infere nces in fa

vor of, the non- movant.” Sheppard v. Bee rman , 317 F.3d 351, 354 ( 2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgme nt should be g rante d “only if there is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t, a nd if the mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w.” Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner , 416 F.3d 109, 113 ( 2d Cir. 2005). We review the district court’s discove ry

and evide ntiary

ruling s for a

buse of discr etion. In re “Agent Orange ” Prod. Liab. L itig. , 5 17 F .3 d 7 6, 10 2 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 8) ; Ar lio v . Li v e ly , 474 F.3d 46, 51 ( 2d Cir. 2007). We turn first to Duttweiller’s c halleng es to the district court’ s discovery and evide ntiary
ru lin g s. In th is r e g ard , D utt we ill e r p ri nc ipa lly

c onte nd s th at it

wa s e rr or fo r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

to have de nied her

application, made by

letter dated Octobe r 13, 2008, to supplement the re cord with respec t to the Union’s motion for summary judgme nt with an aff

idavit and letter f

rom Dr. Brian Rieg er, a

reha bilitation ps ycholog ist who had bee n treating Duttwe iller since F ebrua ry 2006. Two day s later, in deny ing this application without prejudice, the district cour t noted the 1 fo l l o wi n g: Plaintiff has not shown cause as to why she did not include the a ffidavit in question in her orig inal paper s in oppositi on to [ the Union’s] moti on for summary judgme nt, which raises a challeng e to whethe r Plaintiff has a disa bility under the ADA. Should the Court4

decide that the af

fidavit in question is material to the proc eeding s, it will enter tain future reque sts. J .A. 20 (c itation omit ted). On N ovember 2, 2009, as par

t of her submission opposing Ea g le’s separ ate, late r-f

iled summary

judgme nt motion, Dutt weiller f iled a more detailed a ffidavit fr om Dr. Rieg er dated Octobe r 30, 2009. The district c ourt consider ed this October 30 aff idavit not only in connec tion with Eag le’s motion, but also in li g ht of its earlier decision to grant the Union’s motion, which it reaf firmed on the ba sis that the affidavit did not establish facts that
wer e material to Duttweiller’s a lleg ations of disability discrimination. By

ultimately

considering the af fidavit as it bore upon the claims ag ainst the Union, the district court pr ovided Duttweiller with the very

relief that she sought in her Oc tober 13, 2008 letter . Ag ainst this background, we fi nd no e rr or in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s tr e atme nt o f D r. Rie g e r’ s a ff ida vit s. Next, ins ofar

as Duttweiller c halleng es the district cour t’s decision to grant in par t the Union’s motion to st rike c erta in portions of Duttweiller’s own a ffidavit in opposition to t he Union’s summary

judgme nt motion, we conclude that her pre sentation of that cha lleng e is too perf unctory to preser ve appe llate re view. Duttweiller ’s openingbrief pur ports to reser

ve her
argume nts re g ard ingthat r uli nguntil the fi lin gof

he r r e ply br ie f, at whic h p oint sh e wo uld
re sp on d to the de fe nd ants ’ c onte nti on s. Whil e the reply br ie f d oe s c onta in l imi te d a rgume nt i n
s u p p o rto f th e a f f i d av i t ’ s a dm i s s i b i l i ty in toto , an appe llant’s failure to advanc e argument on an issue in her ope ning brief g ener ally prec ludes our re view of that issue, see Norton v. Sam’ s Club , 14 5 F .3 d 1 14 , 1 17 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 ); se eals o Tolbe rt v . Q ue e ns Col l. , 242 F.3d 58, 75 ( 2d Cir. 2001), and w e see no rea son to relax this prudential rule in the circ umstances of this case. As to the merits of the district cour t’s decisions grantingsummary judgme nt in favor of5

the def endants on a ll claims, after car eful re view of the rec ord, we aff irm substantially

for the
rea sons stated in the district court’s thorough and we ll-rea soned orde rs. See D uttweill er v . E agle Janitorial, Inc. , N o. 05 -c v- 08 86 , 2 00 9 WL 51 71 83 4 (N. D. N. Y. De c . 2 2, 20 09 ); Duttweiller v. Eagle Janitorial, Inc. , 2 00 9 WL 16 06 35 1 (N. D. N. Y. June 4, 20 09 ). Withre sp e c t to Duttweiller’s c laims of disability discrimination, we note in par ticular our a g ree ment with the district court’s c onclusions that Duttweiller fa iled to provide suffic ient evidenc e that she suf fer ed an adve rse e mploy

ment action bec ause of

her a lleg ed disability , or, alter natively , that Eag le’s non-discriminatory

rea son for ter

minating Duttwe iller was pr etextual. These conc lusions provide sufficie nt rea son to dismi ss these cla ims, even if we wer e to assume arguendo that Duttweiller ha d c re ate d g e nu ine iss ue s o f m ate ri a l f a c t a s to the oth e r e le me nts of he r p ri ma

fa c ie dis a

bil ity discrimination case under the ADA or the NYSHRL
. See Spie

gel v. Sc hulmann , 604 F.3d 72, 80 (2 d Ci r. 20 10 ) (pe r c ur iam) ; Shannon v. N.Y .C. Trans it Auth. , 332 F.3d 95, 99 ( 2d Cir. 2003). We have c onsidered D uttweiller’s re maining a rguments on appea l and find them to be wi tho ut m e ri t. A c c or din g ly , f or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK