Opinion ID: 784093
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excluded Evidence and Abuses Relating to Discrimination

Text: 18 There is no reason to discuss Wheeler's numerous allegations of erroneously excluded evidence and unfair adverse rulings regarding discrimination for the simple reason that Wheeler prevailed on that issue. The jury, in fact, found discrimination. Therefore, even if meritorious, Wheeler's allegations of abuse of discretion would not warrant a new trial because the admission of additional evidence or other rulings in Wheeler's favor would not change the outcome on this issue. See Mems v. City of St. Paul, Dep't of Fire and Safety Servs., 327 F.3d 771, 779 (8th Cir.2003) (Ultimately, Appellants must show two things to gain relief from a faulty evidentiary ruling: (1) that the district court abused its discretion, and (2) that the evidentiary ruling was prejudicial to the point of producing a different verdict.). 19 We are not persuaded by Wheeler's argument that additional evidence regarding discrimination would have also influenced the jury's same decision finding. Additional evidence regarding discrimination could not have influenced the same decision verdict, because the relevant inquiry for the jury on that issue was whether, in the absence of discrimination, Wheeler would or would not have been hired. 2 20