Gary L. Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., No. 08-10043 (11th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 20, 2009.
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED __________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-10043 __________________________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 JANUARY 20, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket No. 04-01415-CV-ORD-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 _____________________________ (January 20, 2009) 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: In a bifurcated trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the Defendant, Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. ( 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 crossappeal, 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. 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
