Opinion ID: 503511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District's Other Arguments

Text: 34 The District raises two other arguments which we reject. It argues that the court erred by refusing to admit evidence regarding the District's policies, CBAs, changes therein respecting salary credit and military service, the nature of the claimed benefits, and the loss of evidence and harm related thereto. The court ruled that the evidence was not relevant. 35 Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will not be reversed absent some prejudice. Cassino v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 817 F.2d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir.1987). In light of the documentary evidence on the record and the nature of the issues before the court, the District has not shown that it was prejudiced by the absence of the proffered evidence. 36 The District contends also that the court erred in finding that each veteran resigned his position in favor of active duty in the military. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc., 823 F.2d 316, 318 (9th Cir.1987). The District's argument has no merit in light of the District's admissions in its pleadings and the record before us.