context: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has approved of multipliers in other areas.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: proper for district court to consider 2.0 multiplier in SS 1983 prisoner litigation
citation_a.sentence: See Perotti v. Seiter, 935 F.2d 761 (6th Cir. 1991) (proper for district court to consider 2.0 multiplier in § 1983 prisoner litigation); Fite v. First Tennessee Prod. Credit Ass’n., 861 F.2d 884 (6th Cir.1988) (affirming multiplier of 1.75 in age discrimination case for contingent nature of the case).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 906 F.2d 762, 767
citation_b.parenthetical: reversing grant of 1.5 multiplier and awarding 2.0 multiplier in contingency Title VII case
citation_b.sentence: See also King v. Palmer, 906 F.2d 762, 767 (D.C.Cir.1990) (reversing grant of 1.5 multiplier and awarding 2.0 multiplier in contingency Title VII case); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1184 (3rd Cir.1990) (contingency multiplier is appropriate in some cases); Fadhl v. City of San Francisco, 859 F.2d 649, 650 (9th Cir.1988) (affirming multiplier of 2 in Title VII contingency case).