
    John SCHWARZKOPF, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-2617.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 17, 2015.
    Nicole M. Rothgeb (with Gregg D. Adler, on the brief), Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C., Hartford, CT, for Appellant.
    Howard Fetner (with Felix J. Springer, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT on the brief), Day Pitney LLP, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant John Schwarzkopf, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, /.), 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 Schwarzkopfs disability-discrimination claims.

Schwarzkopfs 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 Schwarz-kopfs 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 Schwarzkopfs other argu-merits, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
      . Schwarzkopf has expressly abandoned his age-discrimination claims on appeal. See Appellant's Br. at 2, n. 1; see generally Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 202 & n. 8 (2d Cir.2012).
     