Case Name: Gary L. MOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-20
Citations: 313 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 08-10043
Parties: Gary L. MOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON,” District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 313
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
Gary L. MOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.
No. 08-10043.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2009.
Hal K. Gillespie, Dallas, TX, Martha Ann Chapman, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee.
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Hala A. San-dridge, Sarah Lahlou-Amine, Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.
Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON,” District Judge.
Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, silting by designation.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
After our January 20, 2009, 2009 WL 117564, opinion was filed, Cross-Appellant/Defendant Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. ("Bell Helicopter") filed a petition for rehearing. The petition is granted .to the extent that we vacate our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.
In a bifurcated trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Bell Helicopter liable to the Plaintiff, Gary L. Mock, and the district court awarded Mock damages in the amount of $225,809 plus interest. On appeal, Mock claims that the district court, in computing the damage award, made the following errors: limiting back pay, denying recovery for lost retirement benefits, denying reinstatement, denying front pay, and in determining the applicable prejudgment interest rate.
Bell Helicopter filed a cross-appeal, raising issues of liability. On cross-appeal, Bell Helicopter claims that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence failed to establish pretext, and the district court improperly admitted "me too" evidence. Alternatively, Bell Helicopter requests a new trial on the merits.
After a thorough review and consideration of the record, the parties' briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel, we find no error as to the legal issues and that the district court's award of damages was within the court's discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court in all respects.
AFFIRMED.