Sample. Facts and figures are illustrative and describe no real matter. Case counts and rates are placeholders for what the NorthLaw federal appellate database returns on a real query.

Settlement Analytics Memorandum

Comparable-case benchmark — prospects and timing of an appeal from summary judgment in a Title VII matter

To	[Counsel], [Firm]
From	Karim Souidi, M.Sc. (Econometrics), NorthLaw.ai
Matter	[Plaintiff] v. [Employer] — sample file NL-2026-0005 (Title VII retaliation; summary judgment for defendant, D. [district], Ninth Circuit)
Date	25 September 2026
Purpose	Appeal-or-settle decision support. Privileged; prepared at the request of counsel. Not prepared for filing or testimony.

1. Bottom line

In 412 Ninth Circuit decisions since 2015 reviewing summary judgment for the defendant in Title VII cases, the plaintiff obtained a reversal or partial reversal in 27%. Retaliation claims with a pretext dispute, like this one, did better: 34% (n = 96). Applying our calibrated model to the specific features of this case (retaliation theory, temporal proximity under 60 days, a disputed comparator, no direct evidence, published district opinion) gives an estimated reversal probability of 31% with an 80% interval of 22% – 41%.

Median time from notice of appeal to decision in the comparable set is 14 months (interquartile range 11 – 19). For settlement purposes: a one-in-three chance of returning to the district court, roughly 14 months out, against the defendant's cost of briefing and the risk of a published adverse precedent. The number that most changes the estimate is whether the panel treats the comparator as similarly situated; cases where the appellate court accepted the comparator reversed at 52%.

2. Question presented

How often have comparable appeals succeeded, how long have they taken, where does this case sit within that record, and which features of the case move the estimate most.

3. Comparable-case selection

Criterion	Client case	Comparable set
Court	Ninth Circuit	Ninth Circuit
Claim	Title VII retaliation	Title VII (any theory): 412; retaliation with pretext dispute: 96
Posture	Summary judgment for defendant	Same
Period	2026	Decisions 2015 – 2025
Excluded	—	Pro se appeals, dismissals on procedural grounds, unpublished one-line affirmances without reasoning

4. What the record shows

Figure 1. Reversal rates narrow toward the client's fact pattern; the model estimate and interval are shown against the retaliation set.

Measure	Value	Basis
Reversal rate, comparable set (retaliation, pretext)	34%	96 decisions
Model estimate, client features	31%	Validated model, Appendix A
80% prediction interval	22% – 41%	Model
Median time to decision	14 months	IQR 11 – 19; 96 decisions
Share published (precedential)	38%	Comparable set

5. What moves the estimate

Comparator accepted as similarly situated: +21 points. This is the argument to invest in.
Temporal proximity under 60 days: +6 points relative to 60 – 180 days; already in the client's favor.
Direct evidence of retaliatory motive: +14 points where present; absent here.
District judge's published, detailed opinion: −5 points (thorough opinions are affirmed more often).
Panel composition: unknown until assignment; historically accounts for ± 8 points around the estimate and is excluded from the model for that reason.

6. Limits of this analysis

The estimate describes how similar cases were decided; it does not predict this panel's decision.
Reported decisions over-represent contested appeals; many appeals settle before decision and are unobserved.
Case features were coded from the district court opinion and counsel's description; a different characterization of the comparator issue changes the estimate materially.
Prepared for settlement discussions; not an expert report under FRCP 26(a)(2)(B).

Karim SouidiM.Sc. Econometrics · DASCA Senior Data Scientist · NorthLaw.ai · karim@northlaw.ai

Appendix A — Technical results

A1. Model. Logistic regression of plaintiff reversal on coded case features (claim theory, evidence type, temporal proximity band, comparator status, opinion characteristics, year) trained on 3,140 Title VII summary-judgment appeals across all circuits with circuit fixed effects, 2015 – 2023, and validated on 2024 – 2025 decisions it had not seen.

Table A2. Held-out validation (2024 – 2025, n = 486).

Measure	Value	Note
AUC	0.71	Moderate discrimination; appellate outcomes are noisy
Calibration slope	0.96	Predicted probabilities track observed rates
80% interval coverage	81%	Intervals are honest
Brier score vs. base rate	0.176 vs. 0.196	10% improvement over "use the average"

A3. Leakage audit. Features are restricted to those knowable at the time of the notice of appeal; outcome-derived language, panel identity and subsequent history are excluded. Temporal split validation guards against drift.

A4. Feature effects (odds ratios, client-relevant). Comparator accepted 2.4 (1.6 – 3.6); direct evidence 1.9 (1.3 – 2.8); temporal proximity < 60 days 1.3 (1.0 – 1.7); published district opinion 0.8 (0.6 – 1.0).

Appendix B — Data

NorthLaw federal appellate database: published and unpublished decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, coded for claim, posture, disposition, standard of review, opinion characteristics and timing. Comparable set drawn by the criteria in §3; the 96 retaliation decisions and the 412 Title VII decisions are listed by citation in the attached schedule. Client case features coded from the district court's summary-judgment order and counsel's description.