[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-10043 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 20, 2009 ____________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket No. 04-01415-CV-ORL-28DAB GARY L. MOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, versus BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant. ____________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _____________________________ (February 20, 2009) ON PETITION FOR REHEARING 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, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: After our January 20, 2009 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 2 the district court’s award of damages was within the court’s discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court in all respects. AFFIRMED. 3