F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Novem ber 18, 200 8 THO MAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 76 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 21 02 1- CV-WMH DON E. SAUNDERS, in di vi du al ly, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Del aware co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m ber 1 8, 2 00 8) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Afte r a jury tri al on hi s d is cri m in at io n c la im s u nd er the Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh tsAct a nda jury verd ic t i n fa vo r of Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee Wal-M artSto res , Inc ., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t Do n S au nd ers ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Onap pe al , Sau nd ers rai se s t hr ee i ss ue s: (1) th e d is tri ct co urt erredinall owi ng W al -Ma rt t o p res en t ev id en ce re ga rd in g S au nd ers ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r So ci al Secu rit y di sabi li ty ben efi ts an d h is in vo lv em en t i n t he co m pa ny “ Lawn M ai nt en an ce b y Don ”; (2) th e d is tri ctco urt erredinex cl ud in g Sau nd ers ’s pro ffer edreb ut ta l ev id en ce o f te st im on y fro m hi s s oc ia l wo rk er an d t ax do cu m en ts sen t t o h is fianc ee fo r “ Lawn M ai nt en an ce b y Don ”; an d (3 ) W al -Ma rt us eda pe rem

pt ory ch al le ng e to ex cl ud e anAfric anAm eri can po te nt ia l juro r in vi ol at io n o f Bat so n v . Kentuc ky, 476 U.S. 79 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 71 2 (1 98 6) . 1 Afte r rev ie w andora l ar gu m en t, we fi ndno rev ers ib le erro r in th e d is tri ct co urt’s o rd er. Fi rs t, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e ithe r ev id en ti ary ru li ng be cau se W al -Ma rt’s e vi de nc e was rel ev an t t o t he is su e o f m it ig at io n o f da m ag es an d t o i m pe ach m en t o f Sau nd ers ’s cla im th athe st il l wo ul d be work in g a t Wal-M artbu t fo r hi s t erm in at io n, an d S au nd ers ’s pro ffer edreb ut ta l We reviewthe denial of

a motion for a ne w trial for an abuse of discre tion. Bianc hi v. 1 Roadway Ex p., Inc., 441 F .3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). We revie w ruling s on the admissibili ty

of evide nce f

or an a buse of discr etion and will not overturn a n evidentiar

y ruling unless the moving pa

rty establishes a substantial pre judicial eff

ect. Goldsmith v. Ba gby

Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F .3d 1261, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008). We revie w the district cour t’s resolution of a Batson challeng e under

the clea rly err oneous standar d. Central Ala. F air Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. L owder Realty Co., Inc., 236 F .3d 629, 635 (11th Cir. 2000). 2ev id en ce was cu m ul at iv e to Sau nd ers ’s ownex te ns iv e te st im on y onhi s So ci al Secu rit y ap pl ic at io n andhi s i nv ol ve m en t wi th “ Lawn M ai nt en an ce b y Don .” In an y ev en t, Saun de rs ha s n otsh own th ateit he r ev id en ti ary ru li ng ha d asubs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic ia l ef

fecton th e o ut co m e o f th e tr ia l. Sec on d, as to Saund ers ’s Bat so n cl ai m , W al -Ma rt o ffer eda race -n eu tra l ex pl an at io n fo r us in g i ts pe rem pt ory st rik e, an d S aund ers fai le d t o s ho w th atit s re as on was p ret ex tu al . Thu s, we af firm th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g S au nd ers ’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. AFFIRMED.

3