Kavan Kucko

Senior Manager

Contact

  • Chicago

Education

Kavan Kucko focuses on matters involving labor and discrimination, antitrust and competition, and intellectual property. Dr. Kucko applies his expertise in economics, econometrics, and statistics to support attorneys and experts in all phases of commercial litigation. He leads teams that analyze complex issues related to class certification, merits, and damages.

Labor, discrimination, and algorithmic bias
  • Analyzed compensation rates of female and male athletes from collective bargaining agreements and evaluated team revenues in Morgan et al. v. U.S. Soccer Federation Inc., a class action alleging gender pay discrimination.
  • Analyzed male and female pay and promotion rates in connection with a class of employees seeking certification and alleging harm from gender discrimination.
  • Assessed employment mobility and compensation of a class of employees seeking certification and alleging harm from non-solicitation (no-poach) among their employers; analyzed relevant market, merits, and damages associated with the allegations.
Antitrust and competition
  • Analyzed alleged quantity restrictions in an alleged conspiracy to raise prices of raw milk and processed milk products.
  • Estimated price and quantity effects related to healthcare firm acquisitions.
Intellectual property
  • Evaluated merits claims in a matter related to allegedly anticompetitive exclusive-supply arrangements for a pharmaceutical ingredient.
  • Analyzed the relevant market and calculated lost profits in a matter involving sham litigation.
Pro bono

Dr. Kucko has published research in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy and International Finance.

Professional Affiliations
Case

Fresenius Kabi USA LLC v. Par Sterile Products LLC et al.

Case

Morgan et al. v. U.S. Soccer Federation Inc.

Case

Pro Bono: Brown et al. v. Madison County, Mississippi

Case

Class Certification Analysis in Employment Discrimination Litigation

Case

Shuffle Tech International LLC et al. v. Scientific Games Corp. et al.