Opinion ID: 405227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If Error, Was it Prejudicial ?

Text: 172 Assuming that an error was committed under one or more of the above Rules of Civil Procedure, Bunch must establish that such error was not harmless. Rule 61 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that no error in any ruling or order by the court is ground for a new trial or otherwise disturbing a judgment unless refusal to do so is inconsistent with substantial justice: The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. See also United States v. 1,071.08 Acres of Land, 564 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1977). 173 Bunch has not indicated in what manner his substantial rights were affected. As outlined above, Bunch was aware before trial that the government's theory of defense was that age was not the determining factor in selecting Casson over Bunch. This defense theory was set forth in the pretrial order, the trial brief, and articulated during the government's opening statement. During the government's presentation of its evidence, Bunch raised no objection on the grounds of surprise nor did he raise any other claim based on any alleged change in the defense theory. Bunch did not object to the testimony of Lingelbach on his direct examination. As noted above, he had full opportunity to cross-examine Lingelbach thoroughly about deposition testimony. He also had the opportunity to question Turner, his rebuttal witness, about Turner's deposition testimony. Bunch's motion to strike their trial testimony or for alternative relief was not made until six days after the completion of the trial. 174 Bunch suggests that had Lingelbach and Turner not changed their position, the government would have been in the position of defending the use of age/retainability as a determining factor in not selecting plaintiff for the job. Opening Brief for Appellant at 27. This argument is woefully unpersuasive. First, the government has never taken the position that age or retainability was a determining factor in Casson's selection. Second, the government need only show that age discrimination was not the determining factor. Cancellier v. Federated Department Stores, 672 F.2d 1312 at 1315 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, Bunch had the burden of proving that, but for his age, he would have been hired. See id. 175 We find no reversible error. The judgment of the district court and the order denying Bunch's motion are AFFIRMED.