Legal Opinion
Mungin v. Katten Muchin & Zavis
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 24, 1996No. Civil Action 94-2286 (JR)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ROBERTSON, District Judge.
Before the court are defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur, and plaintiff’s motion for equitable relief.
1. Defendant’s motion
Plaintiff is an African-American lawyer. He was hired in 1992, in part because of his race, to do bankruptcy work at Fatten, Muchin & Zavis’s Washington, D.C. office. He was well qualified for that work. Nevertheless: (i) his starting salary was less than the average salary of white associates having similar seniority and expertise; (ii) a white associate from Fatten,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Gary McKNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lawrence D. Mungin v. Katten Muchin & Zavis, A/K/A Katten Muchin Zavis & Weitzman, F/d/b/a Katten Muchin Zavis & DombroffCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- Lawrence D. Mungin v. Katten Muchin & Zavis, A/K/A Katten Muchin Zavis & Weitzman, F/d/b/a Katten Muchin Zavis & DombroffCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997