## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 B ER NADINE E. M AT T HE WS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. W I S CONS I N E NE RGY C OR PO RA T I ON, I NC ., f/k/ a W I S CONS I N G AS C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 05- C- 537

—J. P. Stad tmu ell er, Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 1, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AU ER an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . W e l astsa w th is c ase j ust o ver thre e y ear s a go w hen w e re m anded i t f orfurtherpro ce eding s o n a sing l e is su e

—bre ach o fco ntra ct. A gr ant o f sum m ar y j ud gm ent a gai nst M at th ew s o n re tal i ati on u n d er T itle V II w as affirm ed

. M at t he ws v. Wi s . Ene rgy Corp
. , Inc. , 534 F .3 d 5 47 (7th C ir. 2008) (M a tthew s I ).2 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571

W EC w as f or m er l y kn own as W i s c ons i n Gas Com pany . 1 B er n ad in e M at th ew s, a fo rm er em p loy ee of W isc on sin E n er gy C or p or at ion , In c . (W E C ), su ed W E C , alle g in g it vi ol ate d a sett l em ent agr eem ent by brea chi ng a “r efer encer e qu e s tp r o v i s i o n. ” Onr e man d, a j ury s i de d wi th W EC, 1 and now M atthew s a pp eal s f orthe seco nd ti m e. Bec au se a j ur y ha s r en dered a v er di ct, we vi ew the ev id en c e i n th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o t h at ve rd ict
. Cru z v. Tow n o

f C ice ro, Ill

. , 275 F.3d 579, 583 (7th Cir 2001). H ere ar e the f acts
. M at th ew s was em plo yed byW EC fro m 19 80 to 1999
. W hen she l eft W EC , the parti es enter ed i nto an ag re emen ttha tinc l ud e d p r o v i si ons r e g a r di ngh o w WEC w oul d res pond to r efer ence re qu es ts about herfro m pr ospect i v e e mpl o y e r s . I n 2 0 0 3 , Mat the ws s ue d WEC al l egi ng that i t bre ached thos e provi si ons. T o re sol ve that su it, the par ti es enter ed i nto a co nfi denti alse ttl em e n t a g r e e me n t ( th e Ag r e e me n t ) wh i c h a d d r e s s e d t he i nfo rm ati on W EC would dis cl ose to pro spect i ve em plo yer s: W i sco nsi n Gas ag re es to re spond to an y r equest f or a re fer en c e re ga rd in g M at th ew s in a m an n er th at is consi ste nt with the W i sco nsi n Gas pol i cy i n pla ce re ga rd in g r e f e re n c e c h ec ks atth e t im e. W isc on sin Gas wi l l n o tr e s po nd t o a nyr e qu e s tf o r a r e f e r e nc e r e g a r d i n gMa t th e ws b y i n d i c a t i n gt h a tMa t th e ws w as ter m i nated o r fi re d fr om W i sco nsi n Gas. W E C’s pol i cy re gar ding re f er ence re quests w as to confi rm thatthe in d ivid ual had w or ked the re , and toN os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 3 p ro vid e t h e d at es of em p loy m en t, sa lar y, an d p os itio n . W EC would not re l eas e a ny subj ecti ve i nfo rm ati on about the for m erem plo yee ’ s per f or m ance. I n May 20 05 , M atthew s fi l ed th i s l aws ui t, a l l eg i ng that W EC br eached the A gr eem en t’s re f er ence- re quest provi sio n by f ai l i ng to pro perl y v er i fy herem plo ym ent tw i ce in 200 4. A few days pri orto fi l i ng the sui t, M at th ew s, in an effo rt t o f in d a n ew j ob , en ro lled in a S oci alS ecuri ty A dm i ni str ati on ( SS A ) pro gr am cal l ed the “ Tic ketto W or k Pr og ra m ” which al l ow s di sabl ed ind ivi d ua ls r ec eiving social secu rity ben efi ts to w ork w h ile c on tin u in g t o re c eiv e t h eir be n efit s. Se ege ne r al l y, T he Ticket P r o g r a m : W ha t is th e Ticket Program ?, ht tp : // w w w . your ti cket towork

. com /pr ogr am __i nfo

. ( l astvi si ted M ay 19, 2011). I n acco rdance w i th the pro gr am , M atthew s hi re d Ho wa r d S c h wa r t z , P r e s i d e n t a n d C E O o f C a r e e r Co nsu l tingS er vi ce s o fAm er i ca ( C C S A), a c o ns ul ta ntwho speci al i zes i n hel ping disabl ed i nd i vi du al s s eekem plo yme n tth r o u g h th e T i c k e tT o Wo r kP r o g r a m. Ma t th e ws si gned a SS A Consent and Rel eas e o fI nfo rm ati on f or m , gi vi ng S chw ar tz perm i ssi on t o tal k t o thi rd part i es about i nfo rm ati on he deter m i ned w as re l evantto her j ob sea rch. S he als o si gned a Confi denti alI nfo rm ati on Rel eas e Au thor i zati on ( CIRA ) , wh i ch w as speci fi c to Sc h w ar tz ’s com p an y. U n d er th e C IR A , s h e vo lu n ta rily conse nted to the disc l osur e t o CC SA ofi nfo rm ati on re l ate d to her perso nal bac kgr ound, health , e m plo ymen t, e du c a t i o n a nd o the r da t a , a nd s pe c i fi c a l l y g r a nted S c hwa r t z the r i g ht t o c o nt a c t he r f o r mer e mpl o y e r s t o4 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571

There w as si gnific ant debate ov er whether Sc hw art z changed 2 M at t he ws’ r es um e as a re s ul tofa p ho ne c al l with Lynn e E ng lish, i n-ho u se cou nsel a t W E C , as M atth ew s claim s, or if he c han ge d i t p rior t o the c al l

. W EC pre s en t ed s i gni fi c ant e v id en ce tha t the d ocu m en t w as ch an g ed b efore th e call. B eca u se w e v i e w the ev id en ce in a ligh t m ost fav or ab le to the j ury v erdict, w e as sum e t he docum ent w as changed bef ore Sc hwart z s poke with Engl i s h. Schw arz c lai m s he s ent an identi cal l ett er i n th e m ail s everal 3 d ay s earlier, bu t W E C nev er rece iv ed it. elic it p er so n al in for m at i o n th at h e d ee m ed p ot en tia lly he l pfult o the j o b se ar ch

. F o r s ev er almonths , S ch war tz ha d no l uckfi ndi ng M atthew s a j ob. H e a pp roac hed her about hi s di ffi cul ti es, and she cl ai m ed that W EC was blackbal l i ng her

. W hen Schwar tz a sk ed w hy, M atthew s s ai d she was unabl e t o di sc us s it be ca us e o fthe c o nfi den ti al i typr o vi si o n i n the A gr eem ent. S he di re cted S chw ar tz to re ach o ut to her l awy er, J an etHei ns . S ch war tz c al l ed H eins who co nfi r med tha tMat the ws h a d fi l e d a l a ws ui ta g a i ns tWEC. A fterhi s co nver sat i on with H ei ns, S ch w ar tz re vi sed Ma t th e ws ’ r e s u me

— r emov i nghe r W EC e m pl o y m en t e n t i r e l y . He s e n tth e n e w r e s u me t o He i n s a n d Ma t th e ws

2 f o r a utho r i za ti o n a nd a l so c al l ed Hei ns t o a ski fhe cou ld con tact W E C f or a r eferenc e. A few w eeks later, He i ns c a l l e d S c hwa r t z a utho r i z i ngh i m t o c o ntactWEC. S ch war tz the n f ax ed a l et te r t o ArtZi nt ek, Vi ce - Pr es i den t ofH um an Reso urces atW EC
. The le tte r i nd i cate d 3 th a tC C S A w a s c o nt r ac t e d b y th e S S A t o a s s i s tMa t th e wsN os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 5 i n h erj o b se ar cha nd r eque st ed th atW EC confi rm M atthew s’ w ork hi sto ryatW EC and prov i de com m ents re gar ding her w or k per f or m ance. I t a l so sai d that a re l eas e a uthor i zing W EC to pro vi de the i nfo rm ati on w as encl ose d, but S chw ar tz f ai l ed to i ncl ud e i t. W hen Zi ntek’ s offi ce r ecei ved the f ax, due to M atthew s’ pen di ngs ui t ag ains t W EC, i t was forw ar ded to Ly nne En gl i sh i n the Legal Dep ar tm ent b ecause she had hand l ed the 20 03 se ttl em ent a gr eem ent. I n Octobe r 2005 , Eng l i shc al l ed Schwar tz t o di sc us s hi s l et te r . Dur i ng the c onver sat i on, she tol d Schw ar tz that h e had not i nc l ude d a r el eas e. S ch war tz s ai d he woul d s en d the re lea se , bu t h e a l s o p u sh ed E n glis h to an sw er h is r efer en ce r eque sto ve r the p hon e. S he t es ti fi ed th ats he to l d hi m s he c o ul d no t be ca us e “[ M at th ews ] has su ed us for h ow w e re sp on d to refe re n c e re q u e s ts ,” or “w e’r e in l i ti ga tion w i th her

. ” Engl i sh al so i nfo rm ed Schwartz th at th e w rit te n res p on se to h is re fer en c e re q u es t w ou ld o nl y p r o v i de b a s i c i nf o r mat i o n a nd wo ul d n o ti nc l ud e th e com m ents on M atthew s’ per f or m ance he had re

quested. A fterthe conve rs ati on, S chw ar tz sent En gl i sh the r el eas e f or m . W EC then m ailed S c hw ar tz a l ett er v e r i fy i n gMa t th e ws’ e mpl o y me n t
. Att r i a l, Ma t th e ws ad m itt ed th at W E C ’s r e sp on se let te r w as su b st an tia lly cor re ct. I n the fi rs t r ound ofthi s c as e, th e di str i ct j ud ge gr anted WE C ’ s mo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t as to a l l c l a i ms an d a war ded i t $1 73 , 23 2. 44 i n a tt o r ne y s f ee s, pur su an t t o th e f e e - s h i ft i n gp r o v i s i o n s i nth e Ag r e e me n t
. Ma t th e ws a p p e a l e d , a n d w e a ffi r me d th e d i s mi s s a l o fa l l c l a i ms6 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 except the br each o fco ntra ct c l ai m p redica ted o n W EC ’ s co m m u n icati on with Schwartz. W e r em anded the c ase f orfurtherp ro ceedi ngs on this iss ue and vac ate d th e a w ar d of at to rn ey ’s fe es . M a tthew s I , 534 F
. 3d at 559- 60. On rem and, a j ury h eard M atthew s’ br each o fco ntra ct c l a i m a nd r e t ur ne d a g e ne r a l v er dictfi nd i ngtha tWEC did n ot breach the Agree m ent. The di str i ct j ud ge re i nstat ed hi s 2 007 f ee aw ar d. W EC then fi l ed a pos ttr i almot i o n f o r a ddi ti o na l a tt o r ne y ’ s f ee s unde r the Agr ee m en t, s ubmi tting r eda ct ed bi l l i ngs ta te m en ts a nd dec l ar at i o ns f r o m i ts o ut si de co uns ela uthe nt i ca ting them

. The j ud ge gr anted W EC ’ s m oti on

— fi ndi ngthe fee s c om m er c ially rea so n ab le a n d n o t in g t h at W E C p aid the l eg al bi l l s be f or e the ve rdi ct, witho ut any ass urance that they w oul d be r eco uped

— an d aw ard ed attorn ey’s f ees i n the am ou nt o f$5 22, 527. 75 and nontaxabl e co sts and expenses i n the am ount o f$4 0, 493. 64. On this appeal, M atthew s a rgue s th at the j ud ge er re d b y : ( 1 ) i n s t r u c t i n gth e j u r y i tc o u l d fi n d th a tM a t t h e ws w ai ved enf or cem ent o fthe A greem ent; ( 2) r efusi ng to bifurca t e t h e issues of breach and da m ages in th e j ury i nstr ucti ons; ( 3) al l ow in g th e ca se to go the j ury w i th an agen cy instru ction; and ( 4) aw ard ing W E C attorn ey’s f ees and cos ts. M at th ews fi r stc l ai m s th atthe j udg e er r ed when he i ns t r u c t e d th e j u r y th a ti tc o u l d fi n d Ma t th e ws “ wa i v e d” enf or cem ent o fthe A gr eem ent b y a uthor i zi ng Sc h w ar tz to el i ci tp e r s o n a l i n f o r ma t i o n ab o u th e r . We r e v i e w a dist ri ct j ud ge’ s deci si on r ega rdi ng j ury i nstr u c ti ons f or ab u se of d isc re tio n . Cons um e rPr oduc t s Re s e ar ch & D e s ign,N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 7 Inc . v. Jensen , 572 F .3 d 4 3 6 , 438 (7th C ir. 2009). M oreover, we wi l l o nl y g r an t a ne w tr i al if th e v er di cti s ag ains t th e c lea r w eig h t of th e e vid en c e. Tam m i v. Po rs che C ars N orth A m er ica, Inc. , 536 F.3d 702 , 708 (7th C ir. 2008). M atthew s m ake s t w o ar gum ents w i th r ega rd to wavi er . Fi rs t, W EC f ai l ed to pl ead waiv er a s a n affi rm ati ve de f en se , a nd the r efo r e th e j udg e er r ed bya l l o wi ng W EC to ar gue wai verand by i ncl ud i ng the i nstru c tio n a b o u twa i v e r . W EC n o t e s , h o we v e r, th a tMa t th e ws neverpl ed

— i n h e r c o mp l a i n to r a n a me n d e d c o mpl aint

— the f acts that g ive r ise to the use o fwaive r as a de f ense. I ns t e a d, Mat the ws s e e ms t o a r g ue tha tWEC sh o ul d ha ve pr ee m pti ve l y pl ed wavie rr eg ar di ngthe conve rs ati on be tw een Engli sh and Sc hw ar tz w hi ch had n o t y et oc c u rre d w h en sh e filed h er co m p lain t. T h is ar gum ent i s m er i tl ess . W EC was not obl i gat ed to f or ecas t future eve nts. F ur th er m o r e, e ve n i fM at th ews ha d i nc l ude d the phone conve rsati on i n herco m pla i nt o r an am ended com pla i nt, we have pr evi ousl y hel d that the “ ru le that f or f ei ts an affi rm ati ve defe nse not ple aded in the answ er ( o r b y a n e a r l i e r mot i o n) i s , we wa nt t o mak e c l e ar , not to b e a pp l i ed ri gi dly

. ” H e r r e m ans v. Car r e r a Des igns, Inc ., 157 F
. 3 d 1 1 1 8 , 1 1 2 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. “ Th e f a i l ur e t o pl ead an affi rm ative d efense in th e an sw er w orks a f orfei tu re onl y i ft h e pla i nti ffi s har m ed by the defendant’s del ay i n as se rt i ng i t. ” C a rter v. U nited Sta tes , 33 3 F
. 3d 791, 79 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. Her e, M at th ews ha s no t ar g ue d t hat sh e w as p rej udi ce d whenthe j udg e al l o wed W EC t o a r g ue w ai veras a defe nse. W EC di d n ot cal l any new witnes ses8 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571

ori ntro du ce a ny new evi dence as a re sul t o fthe w ai ver defe nse. A l l o fthe evi dence ati ssue w as i n the possessio n of M at th ew s ’ k e y w itn es s, Sc h w ar tz
. Se eWi l l i am s v. Lampe, 39 9 F
. 3d 867, 87 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( fi nd i ng tha t w here t h e p l ai nti ff“does notsugg estany prej ud i ce t o her f ro m the defe n d an ts ’ del ay [ i n ass er ti ng a defe nse] o th ertha n h ers ubs eque nt pre par at i o n f o r t r ai l, the cou rt did not ab us e its discretion in all ow ing the de fense” ). M at th ews a l so a r g ue s th atthe j udg e er r ed w he n h e gave a w avi eri nstr u c tion to the j ury because the A gr eem ent r equi re d w aive rs to be i n w ri ti ng. A ccor ding to M at th ews , the pr o vi si o n o fthe Agr ee m en t

— “ T h e t e r ms ofthi s Agree m ent m ay not be al ter ed, am ended, orwaive d excep t bya no th erwri tt ena g r ee m en t si g ne d b y the Part i es”

— shoul d have r endered an instr ucti on o n w avi era no- no. W e di sag re e. W E C n ev er co ntended that the p a rties m et and agr eed to modi fy the t er m s o fthe s et tl em enta g r ee m en t. The s o r to fwa i v e r que s t i o n pu tto th e j ur y c o nc e r ne d uni l at e r al wai ve r o fe nt i tl ement s unde r a n un ch a n g ed co ntra ct. W EC di d n ot conte nd ( and the i nstr ucti on di d not a sk th e j ur y t o fi nd) tha t th er e ha d b een a c hang e i n “ th e te r m s” o fthe a g r ee m en t ( whi chi s whatthe ch a n g e - o n l y - i nw ri ti ng cl ause cove rs )
. I t i s co m m on f orp eo p le t o f or ego benefi ts that cannot be w ai ved thro ugh a contra c t. Fo r exam ple : N o em plo ye e can ag re e with the em plo yer that the Age Di scr i m i nati on i n Em p loy m ent Act w i l l not ap p ly to the j ob in qu estion; the stat ut e’s ben efi ts can ’t be wai ved oral ter ed b y c ontract
. But anyo ne can r et i re w he ne ve r he want s, a nd i n tha t se ns e wai ve theN os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 9 statu te’s ben efi ts. T ha t is how the inst ruc tion he re re fer re d to “w ai ver . ” The j ury w as not ask ed to fi nd that M atthew s a nd W EC change d the t er m s o f t h eir ag re em ent, so thati n the future W EC coul d res pond to i nquir i es by tel l i ng o therpoten tia lem plo yer s about M atthew s’ l i t i g a t i on h i s t o r y o r tha tMat the ws h a d b e e n fi r e d. T h e qu e s t i o n p u tt o th e j u r y wa s wh e th e r Ma t th e ws uni l a t e r a l l y a utho r i z e d d i s c l o s ur e t o S c hwa r t z ( who was ac t i ng a s he r a g e nt ) o n thi s o ne o c c a s i o n. I n tha tse nse, th e givi ng of an i ns tru ction w aiver w as no t error. M atthew s’ se cond cl aim is that the j ud ge er re d “by re fusi ng to bi furcat e the i ssues o fbr each a nd dam age s i n the s ubst an ti ve j ur y i ns tr uct i o ns . ” W e r ev i ew the j ud ge’ s deci si on r ega rdi ng j ury i nstr ucti ons f orabuse of d isc re tio n . Je nsen , 5 72 F. 3d at 438. I n hi s i nstr ucti ons, the j ud ge tol d the j ury: I n o r d e r to p r e v a i l o n h e r b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c tc l a i m, B e r n a d i n e Ma t th e ws mu s t p r o v e e a c h o ft he follo w in g e lem en ts by a p re p on d e r a n c e of th e e vidence: Fi rs t, the exi ste nce o fa val i d contr act creating o bl i gati ons between the parti es; Se c on d , a m at er ial b re ac h of th e con tr ac t b y W isc on sin Ene r g y, a nd Thi r d, da m ag es t o Be r na di ne M at th ews fl o wi ng na tu r al l y a nd pr o babl y fr o m the b r ea ch

. M atthew s a rgues that thi s i nstr ucti on w as i m proper b ec au se th e ju r y h ad to find d am ag es be for e itco u ld fin d th at a b re ac h h ad oc c u rre d . B u t t h e i n s t r u c tio n is10 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 in l i ne w i th the el em ents of a bre ach of contr act cl aim in W is c o n sin
. See M a tthew s I, 534 F. 3d at 553 ( “The el em ents f o r a b r ea chof con tr ac t i n W i sc o ns i n a r e f ami l i ar ; the pl aint i ffmusts ho w a v al i d c o nt ract th atthe de f en dan t bre ached and dam age s fl owing f ro m t h at bre ach. ”) ( ci tingNor t hwe s t ern M ot orCar, Inc . v. Pope, 51 W i s. 2d 292, 296 (W is. 1971)). W hi l e we ag re e w ith M atthew s that g i ven the so m ewhatunu su alfee - sh i ftingpr o vi sions o fthe s et tl ement agree m ent i t m i ght ha ve been w i serto m or e clea rly s e p a r a t e o u tthe ques t i o n s o fb r e a c h a n d d a ma g e s , we ar e m i nd ful ofo ur duty to vi ew j ury i ns tr u c ti ons as a whol e. J ur y i ns tr uct i o ns a r e co ns i der ed “b o thin the co nt ex t o fthe o th eri ns tr uct i o ns g i ve n a nd i n l i g hto fthe al l eg at i o ns o fthe co m pl aint, o pen i nga nd c l o singa r g um ents and the e vi dence ofr eco rd. ” Lyn ch v . B el de n & Co. , Inc. , 88 2 F
. 2d 262, 26 7 ( 7th C ir. 1 989). H er e, the j ud ge al so i nstr ucted the j ury th at i t m ust dete rm i ne wh ether W E C br ea c h ed th e s et tle m en t a gr ee m en t, an d th at if it f ound a br each b ut herdam age s had no m onet ar y v al ue, i t m ust r etu rn a v erdicti n herf avo r and aw ar d her nom i nal dam age s. W i th thatbeing th e ca se, we cannot concl ud e that the j ud ge i ncor re ctl y instr ucted the j ury on the i ssue ofbr each and dam age s. N ex t, M atthew s cl ai m s that the j ud ge abused hi s di scre ti on w h en he a l l owed the case to go to the j ury w i th the instr ucti on that i t co uld fin d Schw ar tz w as acti ng as M atthew s’ ag ent. M att hew s a rgues that the ev i dence w as ins u f f icie n t t o s u p p or t a n ag en c y in st ru c tio n . Th is ar gum ent f ai l s f orse ver alr eas ons.N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 11 Fi rs t, the age ncy i nstructi on M atthew s no w chal l enges wa s s ub mi t t e d t o the c o ur t i n the pa r t i e s ’ J o i nt Fi nal Pret ri alRepor t. W EC not es that

— d e s p i t e Ma t th e ws claim to the con trary

— thi s i s o ne o f t h e j ury i nstr uctio n s u p on w h ich th e p ar tie s a g re ed . Sec on d , alth o ug h M at th ews c o r r ec tl y s ta te s th ats he o bj ec te d t o the i ns tr uct i o n, s he mis st at es th e r ea so n f o r he r o bj ec ti o n. M atthew s’ o bj ecti on a cknowle dges that: [ O]ne m i ght a l so vi ew H oward Schwartz as M atthew s’ a g e ntwi th the u nd e r t a k i ngb e i ngtha to fp l a c i ngher in e m p l o y m en t. T h e e vid en c e e licit ed by [W E C ] .
. . howev er, was de si g ne d t o s ho w tha t i n r eque st i ng a r efer ence f ro m W EC , S chw ar tz w as n ot acti ng o n behal fo fM atthew s, but i nstea d, at the b ehesto f A tto rneyH ei ns. I n no way does thi s o bj ecti on u n d er m i ne the i nstr ucti on on a gency . I n f act, i t doe s e xactl y the o pp osi te

— M atthew s’ o bj ec tion ass er ts that Schwartz i s he rage nt, wor k i ngo n herbe half

, and not at the b ehesto fH ei ns. Si m i l ar l y, M atthew s r ead i nto evi dence a stip ula

tio n t h at presum ed Schwartz w as her age nt: “[ T]he def endant w i l l notar gue tha t M r. S chw ar tz’ s s tatus as M s. M atthew s’ age nt w as negat ed by vi rtue of the f act that sh e ha d pr ev i o us ly assi g ne d he r t i ck ett o wor kt o the Dep ar tm ent o fVocat i onalRehabi l i tat i on. ” M atthew s a l so si gned CC SA ’ s wai ver, gr anti ng S chw ar tz the a uthor i ty to el i ci t i nfo rm ati on on herbehal f, wh i ch he di d w hen he spok e t o att or ney Engl i sh. There for e, w hi l e we ag re e th at th es e a c kn ow led gm en ts o f ag en c y a re n ot d isp os iti ve o fS ch war tz ’ s statu s as M at th ews ’ a g en t, g i ve n the12 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 evi dence pres ented a j u ryco uld r eas onabl y fi nd that S c hwa r t z wa s a c t i ng a s M a t the ws ’ a g e nt a nd tha t, co nsequentl y, W EC di d not br each the Agree m ent. Fi nal l y, M atthew s cl ai m s that the di str i ct j ud ge er re d i n a wa r d i n g WEC $ 5 6 3 , 0 2 1
. 3 9 i n a t t o r n e y ’ s f e es a nd costs
. W e review a district cou rt’s aw ard of attorn ey’s fee s a n d co st s fo r ab u s e o f d isc re tio n . Tru Se r v Corp. v. Fl egl e s , Inc . , 419 F.3d 5 84, 593 ( 7th Cir 2005). T he aw ard ofat torney’ s fees i s g ove rned , i n thi s ca se, by the A gr eem ent, wh i ch st ate s: [ T] he b reachi ngpa r tywi l l i nde m ni fy a nd ho l d the non-bre achi ng par ty harm l ess f orany cos ts, dam age s o r e xp e ns e s , i nc l ud i ngr e a s o nab l e a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s, ar i si ng o ut o fthe bre ach o f t h e Agree m ent b y that par ty, o r a r i singo uto fa ny su i t o r c l ai m t o e nf o r ce the A gr eem ent. The part i es agr ee that i n the eventthat one ofthe Part i es here to c om m en ces a l aw sui t o r othe r l ega l pro ceedi ng al l egi ng tha t the o th er Par ty bre ached the A gr ee m en t, the preva i l i ng Par ty i n that acti on s hal l be enti tl ed to r eco verhero r i ts re asonab l e a tto rney s fees and expenses i ncurr ed i n such l aws ui t o r l eg alpr o ce edingfr o m the no n- pr ev ai l i ng Party. The j ud ge hel d th at M atthew s fi l ed sui t a nd l ostwh en th e j u r y f o u n d WEC d i d n o t b r e a c h th e Ag r e e me n t, a nd W EC wa s the r e f o r e e nt i t l e d t o r e a s o nab l e a t t o r ne y ’ s fees un d er the A gree m en t. M atth ew s attac ks th e j ud ge’s aw ar d ofat torney’ s fees o n sev er all eve l s. M at th ew s firs t ar g ue s th atthe j udg e er r ed i n g r an ting W EC ’ s m oti on f or atto rney ’ s fees bec ause the r equestN os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 13 l acke d any descr i pti on o fthe w or k perf or m ed. M atthew s, h ow ever, i gnor es the f act that thi s i s a co ntra ctualfeesh i ftingc as e, no t a st atut o r y fee-sh i ftingc as e. I n M e dc om H ol di ng Co. v. Baxt e rTr ave nol La b s . , Inc . , 20 0 F
. 3d 518, 520 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) , we held thatfee- shi fti ng co ntra cts re q u ire “re im b u rs em en t fo r c o m m er c ially -re as on ab le f e e s n o ma t t e r h o w the b i l l s a r e s t a t e d. ” T hu s , the s t a nd

ar d in a co n tr ac tu al fe e-s h iftin g c as e is a “c om m er c ially re as on ab le” st an d ar d , Balc orRe al Es t at eHol di ng s , Inc . v. Wal e nt as - Phoe nix Corp
. , 73 F. 3d 150, 153 (7th Cir. 1996), an d doe s not req uire cou rts to e n g a g e i n “d etailed, hou rb y - ho ur re v i e w” o fa p r e v a i l i ngp a r t y ’ s b i l l i ngr e c o r ds , Me d c o m, 20 0 F
. 3d at 521. Ma t th e ws n e x ta r g u e s th a tth e fe e s a r e n o tc o mm er ci al l y r eas onabl e. I n deter m i ni ng wh ethertheyar e, a co ur t wi l l l ook t o the a g g r eg at e co st s i n l i g hto fthe st ak es ofthe case and opposi ng par ty’ s l i ti gat i on s tr ateg y. Id. Concer ni ng the “s tak es” i n the sui t, and M atthew s’ “li tigation strategy , ” it is in t eresting to n ote th at W E C ’s l aw yerto l d us at or alar gum ent, witho ut co ntra dict i on f ro m M atthew s, thatherfi nal se ttl em ent dem and w as $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
. T ha tma k e s s pe nd i ngthe k i nd o fm on e y WEC di d t o de f e nd the c a s e lo ok a bi tmo r e r e a s o nab l e . Ha d a m o r e m o des t su m b ee n the g o al, the de f en se s pen di ng m i ght a l so have been consi derabl y l ess . A w i l l i ngne s s t o p a y i s a n i nd i c a t i o n o fc o mm e rci al re as on ab len es s. Balc or, 73 F. 3d at 153. H er e, the dist ri ct cour t co rr ectl y a pp l i ed the com m er ci alr eas onabl eness sta nd ard to the f acts o fthe case and f ound the fees r easonab l e. W hi l e the to talat torney’ s fees i n thi s ca se14 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571

The j udge al s o n ot ed thatthe l ang uage ofthe Agre em en t 4 al l ows t he pr eva i l ing p arty t o r ec ove r eve n f or uns uc c es s ful (co n tin u ed ...) a r e u nque s t i o nab l y, a nd u nf o r t un a t e l y, v e r y h i g h, WEC p resen te d e vi den ce tha t i t pai d i ts l eg alfee s be f o r e th e j ury re ached a v er dict, unsure i fi t would e verr eco ver th em . See Kall m an v. Radi os hac k Corp. , 31 5 F
. 3d 731, 742 ( 7th Cir
. 20 02) (fi nd i ng the pre vai l i ng par ty’ s paym ent o f her l eg al bi l l s t o be “ str ong evi dence ofco m m er ci alr easo nabl en es s, whi chi s al l that is re qui r ed” unde r a c o ntr ac tu ali nd em nityc l au se )
. M at th ews ha s o ff er ed no e v i de nc e t o c o un t er W EC ’ s p a y men to fthe b i l l s . Ac c o r di ngl y, W EC ’ s a tto rney ’ s fees ar e com m er ci al l y r eas onabl e. M at th ew s a lso arg u es th at th e ju d g e in c or re c tly g r an te d W EC fee s f o r the secon d s um m ar y j udg m en t m oti on be cause they w er e no t the preva i l i ng partyo n that m o ti o n. UnderW i sc o ns in l aw, ho wev er, a “ pr ev ai l i ng p ar ty ” is notr equi re d to w i n i n “al l r espect s. ” M e t av an te Corp
. v. Em igrantS a vin gs B ank, 200 9 W L 45 56 12 1, at *3 (E .D .W is. N ov . 27, 20 09 ), aff’ d, 619 F. 3d 748 ( 7th Cir. 2010). “W here a p ar ty’s cl ai m s ‘ ar i se out ofa com m on co re o f fac ts ,’ a ‘los in g p ar ty is n o t e n t itle d to a re d u c tio n in at to rn ey ’s fe es for t im e s p en t o n u n su c c es sf u l c laim s, if th e wi nni ngpa r ty ac hi ev ed su bs ta nt i als ucc es s an d the unsuccessful cl ai m s were bro ught and pursued i n go od f a i th. ’ ” Id

. M at th ews do es no t ar g ue tha t W EC br o ug ht th e se co nd mot i o n f o r s um m ar y j udgm en t in b ad f ai th

. T h u s, as th e jud ge n ot ed , M etav a nte com ple tel y di sm antl es M atthew s’ ar gum ent with re spect to m oti ons on wh ich W EC was uns ucc es sful

. W E C pre va i l ed i n the a ct i o n, 4N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 m ot i ons . W e agr ee . Under t he Agre em en t, t he “pre vai l i ng Party i n thatact ion s hall b e en tit led to
. . . fees and expenses incu rre d i n s uc h l aws ui t
. ” Th us , the pr ovi s i on appl i es to all cl aim s in the act ion and all ow s rec overy on all f ees and e xpen se s i n the l aws ui t, r eg ar dl es s ofthe out c om e of ind iv id u al claim s. and und erthe A gr eem ent i t i s accordi ngl y e nti tl ed to re aso nabl e a tto rney ’ s fees and cos ts. Finally, M att h ew s argu es th at th e aw ard of attorn ey’s f ees was i nequitab l e be cause she m ade a goo d fa i th cl ai m , a nd s he c an no t aff o r d t o pa y the fees

. But, a s th e di st r i ctj udg e no te d, the fee - sh i ftingpr o vi si o n o fthe A g r e e men tdo e s n o tp r o v i de a n e xc e pt i o n f o r fi na nc i al ha r dsh i p o r g o o d f ai th

. Unl es s th e pr o vi si o n i s th e p ro d u c t o f u n eq u al b ar ga in in g p ow er , cou rt s g en er ally w i l l notdi spute the f ai rnes s o fsuch pro vi si ons. B ert hold T yp es Ltd . v. Ad o be Sy stem s, Inc ., 186 F. Supp. 2d 83 4, 837 ( N
. D. I ll

. 2 00 2) ( ci tingM e dc om , 200 F.3d at52 0; Balc or, 73 F.3 d at15 3); s e e, e . g. , U ni t e d St at e s , f ort heus eof

C. J
. C. , Inc . v. Wes te rn State s M ec hanical Co ntra ctors, Inc. , 83 4 F
. 2d 1533 , 1 5 4 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ [ W ] he r e c o nt r a c t i ngp a r t i e s have agreed that a breach ing p arty w il l be li able f or attorneys’ fe es, the pu rpos e o fthe aw ar d i s t o gi ve the par ti es the b enefi t o fthatbar gai n, and the cour t’ s r esponsibi l i ty i s t o enf or ce that ba rg ai n”)
. T h is i s no t a cas e i n w hi ch o ne pa r tyha d une qua l b ar g aini ngpo wer, a nd no equita b le requi re m ent a pp l i es to the a tto rney ’ s fee und er th e A gr ee m en t. T h er efo re , th e d ist ric t jud ge co rre c tly f ound that M atthew s’ fi nal cl ai m al so f ai l s.16 N os. 10

- 2600 & 10

- 3571 A m om ent a go, we noted that the fees h er e a re “unquesti onabl y, and unfo rtunatel y, ve ryhi gh. ” W hat e l se can one say abo ut a sta gge ri ng fi gure li ke $563 , 021. 39 i n a c ase li ke th is? Bu t w he th er even a p o r t io n o f th ose fees are coll ectabl e i s no t a m at te r abo utwhi chwe ca n b e co nc e r ne d. Forthe se r ea so ns , the j udg m en t o fthe di st r i ctc o urt i s A FFI RMED .

6- 1- 11