that Whit-taker did not honestly believe that she lied when she told him that she planned to return to Denver for her February 27 shift when she left for Taipei on February 24. Fourth, Rowe makes a conclusory argument that summary judgment was precluded on her ADA claim because her extensive use of FMLA leave while based in Denver created a disputed issue as to whether United officials were aware of her disability, ie., her migraines. But the district court granted summary judgment in favor of United on her ADA claim because United had always accommodated her need for FMLA leave, not because her migraines were not a disability. Because Rowe does not challenge the district court’s reasoning, we need not consider that argument. See Reedy v. Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Rowe argues the district court
holding that where the argument section of appellants opening brief does not challenge the district courts reasoning on a point  we therefore do not address the matter holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal