that Mr. Daneshvar worked for GTI since 1998. Although immaterial to our disposition, this apparent discrepancy is perhaps due to the fact that GTI had discharged him in 1997. Mr. Daneshvar successfully challenged that discharge as retaliatory, which in turn lead to his reinstatement in GTI’s employ by court order filed in 1998. See Daneshvar v. Graphic Tech., Inc., 40 F.Supp.2d 1225 (D.Kan.1998). 2 . Mr. Daneshvar raises no error in the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his disparate workload claim and dismissing all his other claims, except his disparate wage and wrongful discharge claims, for failure to exhaust. Accordingly, we do not consider the court’s rulings on those issues. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n. 7 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Mr. Daneshvar relied on Ingels in the
holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief holding that a party abandoned an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief