SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Devi Cusack appeals from the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment for News America Marketing In-Store (“NAMIS”) and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

As an initial matter, Cusack’s pending motion to include additional exhibits in her appendix is hereby DENIED. The exhibits were not filed in the district court, and Cusack has not shown that the documents were material omissions to the record. See Fed. RApp. P. 10(e)(2).

This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo and asks whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, this Court is “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. On appeal, Cusack argues that NAMIS did not engage in the interactive process envisioned by the ADA by which employers and employees work together to assess whether an employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated. See, e.g., Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2008). However, as the district court explained, Cusack failed to establish the requisite causal connection between NAMIS’s alleged failure to accommodate her disability and an adverse employment action. See Parker v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 260 F.3d 100, 108 (2d Cir. 2001). Because we find that it was undisputed that a reasonable accommodation was not available, NAMIS was not required to engage in this interactive process. See McBride v. BIG Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 100 (2d Cir. 2009).

We have considered all of Cusack’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.