### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503

D A VI D L A WS O N , P laintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant,

v
.
S UN M I C R

O SY S T E M S

, I N C ., Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee.

A ppea l s fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the S outhern Di stri ct o f Indi a na, Indi a na po l i s Di v i s i o n. No . 1 :0 7 -cv -0 0 19 6 -R L

Y -M JD — Richa rd L. Y

oung, Ch ief Judg e

.

A RGUE D J ANUAR

Y 9, 2014

— D E C I D E D J UN E 30, 2015

Befor e M AN I O N

and S YKE S

, Cir cuit Judges , and G RI E S B A C H , District Judge

. *

*Of the Ea stern Di stri ct o f W i s co nsi n, si tti ng b y desi gna ti o n.2 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503

S YKE S , Cir cuit Judge

. Dav i d Lawson s old computer main tenance and suppor t ser v i ces for S tor ageT ek, Inc., m o s t l y t o l ar ge
cor p or a ti ons. He w as pai d a base sal a r y a nd commi s si ons on his s ales under an a nnual incenti v e plan pr omulgated by the company

. S un M icr osystems, Inc., acqui r ed S tor ageT ek in August 2 005. At the ti me Lawson w as w or ki ng on a lar ge sale to JPMor gan Chase & Co., but the deal d i d not close u n t il Mar ch 2006. If S tor age T ek’s 2005 in centi v e plan appli ed, Lawson w ould ear n a sev en-fi gur e commi ssi on, per haps as hi gh as $1.8 mi l li on. If instea d t he s a l e fell under Sun’s 2006 incenti v e pl a n, hi s commi ssi on w ould be far less—about $54,000. S un deter mined that the 2006 p l an a ppli ed and t e nd er ed the low er commi ssi on. Lawson r efused i t and sued for br each of contr act a nd v i o la t io n of Indi ana’s W a ge Clai m S tatute. H e ar gued that the 2005 plan con t in u e d in effect thr o ugh at least Mar ch 2006, when the JPMor gan Chase deal

w as finali zed. The di str i ct cour t r ej ected the statutor y w age c la im b u t submi tted the contr act clai m to a j ur y , whi ch found in fav or of Lawson and aw ar ded $ 1.5 mi lli on in damages. S un appealed, and Lawson cr oss-appealed to ch allenge the di str i ct cour t’s

r u ling on the statutor y clai m. W e r e ve r se and remand wi th instr ucti ons to enter j ud g m e n t for S un. The sale di d not qual i fy for a commi ssi on under the ter ms of the 2005 plan. Although the or i gi nal plan documents sai d the plan w ould r emain in effect unti l super seded by a new one, a S eptember 2005 amendment s et a defin i te t e r m inati on date for the plan y ear : De c e m b e r 2 5 , 2 005. T o ear n a commi ssi on under the 2005 plan, sales had to be final and inv oi ced b yNos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 3
that date. Because Lawson’s sale w asn’t finali zed and inv oi ced unti l Mar ch 2006, Sun i s enti tled to judgment as a matter of law

. Thi s conclusi on necessar i ly defeats the cr oss-appeal.

I. Background The par ti es’ br i efs a r e laden wi th inscr utable acr onyms and sales j ar gon speci fi c t o S t o r ageT ek and S un. W

e w i ll si m pli fy wher e possi

ble, but some peculi ar ter ms ar e unav oi dable.
S tor ageT ek w as a technology c ompany speci ali zing in data sto r a g e

. The company sold har dw ar e and softw ar e used to back up a nd r ecov er data stor ed on c entr ali zed ser v er s. It also pr ov i d ed maintenance and suppor t ser vi c es for i ts pr oducts and si mi lar pr oducts sold b y thi r d par ti es. Many of i ts customer s wer e lar ge cor por ati ons. Lawson w or ked for S tor a geT ek as a S er v i ces S a l es E xecut iv e II. In that posi ti on he s old computer maintenance a nd

s u ppor t contr a cts to customer s in a defined ter ri tor y

. At t he ti m e in questi on, he w as pai d a base salar y of $75,000 plus commi s si ons on hi s sales.

A. StorageT

ek’s Incentive Plan Ev er y y ear S tor ageT

ek i s sued thr ee documents th a t d e fin ed Lawson’s compensati on for that y ear

. The fi r st, called a “S ales Executi v e Incenti v e Plan,” explai ned the c ompensati on plan’s g e n e r a l ter ms and condi ti ons, in cluding the ter ms under whi ch sales w ould quali fy for commi ssi on s

. The second d ocument, the “In centi v e Plan Admini str ati on Document” or “IP AD,”4 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 explai ned how commi s s ions w ould be calculated and also contai ned addi ti onal ter ms and condi ti ons appli c ab le t o S tor ageT ek’s Nor th Amer i ca s ales ter r i tor y

. Fi n ally , the “Quota Document” detai l ed Lawson’s indi v i duali zed sales goals and expected commi ssi ons. The fi r st of these documents incor por ated the other tw o b y
r efer ence, s o together the thr ee documents c onsti tuted Lawson’s enti r e compensati on agr eement. The docume nts speci fi ed that Lawson’s employment w as at wi ll. W e’ll r efer to the plan documents collecti v ely as the “incenti v e p lan” (or j ust the “plan”) unless the context r equi res other w i se. As a gener al matter

, S tor ageT

ek’s in centi v e plan i mposed thr ee basi c r equi r ements for a sale to quali fy for a commi ssi on: (1) t h e sa le must be for “Enter pr i se S uppor t S er v i ces” or “Remote Managed S er v i ces”; (2) the contr a ct must meet S tor ageT ek’s rev enue r ecogni ti on s ta nd a r ds; and ( 3) the sale must be fin al and the customer inv oi ced for the tr ansacti on. The sale at i ssue her e ini ti ally per tai ned to Enter pr i se S u ppor t S er v i c es, a ter m w it h i ts own techni cal meaning. W i th s ome excepti ons, these w er e contr a cts to suppor t thi r d-par ty (not S tor ageT ek’s) softw ar e and equi p ment. Thi s li ti gati on concer ns the 2005 in centi v e plan. T o r ecei v e commi s si on cr edi t for new business under the ter ms of that p l a n, a new contr act had to be executed and inv oi ced dur i n g S tor ageT ek’s 2005 fi scal y ear

, w h i ch w as c alendar y ear 2005. The pl a n a l so aw ar ded commi ssi ons for contr acts executed be f ore calendar 2005 but inv oi ced on “Januar y 1, or later in 2005.”Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 5

Renew a l business w a s tr eated di ffer ently under the plan. S tor age T e k di d not compensate r enewed contr acts as gener
ously as n ew c ontr a cts. The company par celed out i ts exi sting ser v i ce contr acts betw een i ts sales executi v es by ter r i tor y

. S ales executi v es could clai m commi ssi ons f or r enew a ls of the contr acts assi gned to them i n thei r annual incenti v e plans. If a sales executi v e thought a cer tain sale deser v ed speci al tr eatment, the executi v e could fi le a wr i tten r equest w i th the company’s Nor th Amer i ca Incenti v e Plan Commi ttee, wi th copi es to local management. The commi ttee w ould r ev i ew the

r equest and noti fy the sales executi v e of i ts deci si on. S tor ageT ek’s 2005 incenti v e p lan closed w it h thi s secti on, the meaning of whi ch i s centr al to thi s case: Thi s Pl a n i s effecti v e as of Januar y 1, 2005, regar d l ess o f the speci fi c date of publi cati on or di str ibuti on, and super sedes all pr i or Pl a n s , pr ov i s i ons, p r ecedents, compensati on ar r angements, memor anda a nd incenti v e p r ogr ams. It

w ill remain in effect until a subsequent pla n , o r amendme n t t o the P lan, becomes effective. All sales eli gible for quota c r edi t under thi s Plan, or any amendment, by the end of the fi scal y ear 2005 wi ll be p ay able under thi s Plan. S ales not eli gible wi ll be pay able under the Plan in effect at the t i me quota cr edi t i s ear ned. Incentives are n o t earned and a re not wages until all re quirements under this Plan, the Quota Document, the IP AD [ the Administrative Document ] and any amendments to6 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503
these documents have been met as determined solely by the Plan Administrator

. (Emphases added.)

B. Pursuit of JPMorgan Chase; the Sun Acquisition
Lawson star ted p ur suin g JPMor gan Chase as a customer in 2004, and by 2005 he w as dedi cating a si gni fi cant amount of ti me to closing a d eal. In J un e 2 005 JPMor gan Chase soli ci ted
a bi d fr om S tor ageT

ek fo r computer maintenance ser v i ces. Although the p ar ti es had a pr eexi sting contr ac tu a l r e l a ti onshi p to s er v i ce S tor ageT

ek pr oducts, the June 2005 Reque s t for Pr oposal inv olv ed computer maintenance ser v i ces for non-S tor ageT

ek pr oducts, so thi s w as new business unr elated to the pr i or contr act. In other w or ds, in S tor ageT ek’s sales taxonomy

, J P Mor gan Chase’s Request for Pr oposal sought

“ E n t e r p r i s e S u p p o r t S e r v ic e s

. ” L a w s o n s p e a r h e a d e d S tor ageT ek’s r esponse. Impor tantly

, how ev er

, a lar ge per centage of the new
ser v i ces contai ned wi thin the Request for Pr oposal inv olv ed
ser v i cing S un’s pr oduct s. P r i or to S un’s acqui si ti on of S tor ageT ek in Au g u s t 2005, IBM had s ubcontr acted wi th S un to pr ov i de J P M o r g an Chase wi th global suppor t for S un pr oducts. Thi s agr eement, called a “ S tatement of W or k,”
or i gi n a l ly cov er ed the per i od betw een Febr uar y 1 , 2003, and Januar y 31, 2006. S un and IBM extend e d the ar r angement thr ough December 31, 2009, p ur suant to an amendment to the S tatement of W

or k executed o n Mar ch 15, 2005. Despi te thi s extensi on, in June 2005 JPMor gan Chase i ssue d a s epar ateNos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 7 Request for Pr oposal inv i ti ng S un to bi d di r ectly (not thr ough IBM) for the business cov er e d by the Statement of W or k. Ji m Whaley , a S un sales executi v e, took the lead in coor din a t i n g the r esponse and submitted a bi d on S un’s behalf. On June 2, 2005, S un a nnounced that i t w as a c qui ring S tor ageT ek. Thi s a nnouncement p r o mpted Lawson to e-mai l hi s super v i sor

, P aul Hei dkamp, to ask how t h e a cqui si ti on
w ould affect hi s commi ssi on on the JPMor gan Chase deal. Hei dkamp r e s ponded that he needed mor e infor mati on and

w ould get back to hi m. On August 3 1 S un a cqui r ed S tor ageT ek. After the acqui sit io n JPMor gan Chase asked S u n to c ombin e t he S t or ageT

ek and S un bi ds. Fr om the s tandpoi nt of Lawson’s commi s si on, the takeov er dr amati cally changed the si gni fi cance of the deal. As we’v e noted, a substanti al por ti on of the JPMor gan Chase w or k inv olv e d maintai nin g S un pr oducts—business that w ould hav e been new to S tor ageT ek. Afte r t h e a cqui si ti on, h ow ev er , i t w as c lassi fi ed a s r enew al b u s in e s s b e c a use S un w as alr eady pr ov i d in g the ser vi ce s u n d e r the IBM S tatement of W or k.
S un’s r ev i sed mer ged bi d c onta ined thr ee components. Fi r s t, S un offer ed to combine a nd c onti nue ser v i ces i t w as alr eady pr ov i ding under the IBM S tatemen t o f W or k and S tor ageT ek’s pr i or c o n t r act wi th JPMor gan Chase. S econd, S un
o f fer ed to par tner w i th UNIS YS to ser v i ce pr oducts made by other c omp uter manufactur er s, such as H ewlett P ackar d, Compaq, Dell, a nd IBM; thi s w or k w ould be new business for S un

. Thi r d, S u n offer ed to pr ov i de maintenance ser v i c es for JPMor gan Chase’s mainfr ame computer systems.8 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 Whaley (f r om S un) and Lawson (fr om S tor ageT ek) s pear
headed the j oi nt pr oposal, whi ch S un submitted to JPMor gan Chase on October 11, 2005. Whaley di ed shor tly ther eafter , and Mar ti na Caldar a, who had w or ked on S un’s pr e-mer ger bi d, fi lled hi s posi ti on. I n a dd i ti on to changing the si gni fi cance of the JPMor gan Chase deal, S u n’s takeov er of S tor ageT ek alter ed the ter ms of Lawson’s incenti v e plan. On S eptember 1 , 2005, S un amended the plan t o speci fi cally addr ess the effect of the acqui si ti on. Wher eas Stor a geT

ek u s ed the calendar y ear a s i ts fi s cal y ear , S u n’ s fi scal y ear began on June 26. The S eptember 1 am e n d

ment explai n ed that S tor ageT ek w ould conv er t to S un’s fi scal y ear , w i th the tr ansi ti on to take place on December 25, the end of S un’s second fi scal quar ter

. T o effectuate the conv er si on, the amendment speci fi c ally stated that “the cur r ent incenti v e plan y ear for S tor ageT

ek wi ll end December25, 2005.”
S un conti nued to pur sue the JPMor gan Chase deal thr ough the fall of 2005, and Lawson agai n tr i ed t o a scer tai n how the acqui si t i on w ould affect hi s incenti v e compensati on. In Nov ember 2 0 0 5 he e-mai led W oody W all, a S un m anager

, asking about the spli t betw een hi s commi ssi on and Whaley’s. W all assur ed Lawson that the c ompany w o u l d “do the r i ght th ing f or thi s tr ansacti on” and asked hi m to explai n hi s concer n s. The day after thi s exchange, Peter Or r , who had b een Whaley’s s uper v i sor

, e-mai led T

o m Kelley

, Sun’s Vi ce Pr esi

dent of Nor th Amer i can sales, explai ning that Lawson’s si tuati on w as “uni que” and attempti ng to deter mine how h i s commi s si on on th e J P M or gan Chase deal should be tr eated.Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 9

Lawson r ecei v ed a copy of the e-ma i l but does not r ecall

r ecei v ing any r esponse. On December8 Lawson again e-mai led Hei dkamp asking whether the 2005 compensati on plan w ould extend bey ond the
new y ear or i f a new plan w ould b e for thcoming. Hei dkamp

r espon d e d that the “comp plan should s tay the same.” Hei dkamp also e-mai led Phi l Auble, Sun’s Incenti v e Plan Admini str ator

, asking for a s p eci al “excepti on” for Lawson’s commi s si on o n th e J P M o r g a n C h a s e s a l e

. A d d i t i o n a l exchanges betw een L awson, Hei dkamp, a nd other Sun super v isor s thr oughout the month of December d i d not r each a consensus
on how Lawson w ould be compensat e d fo r hi s w or k on the deal.
S un’s second fi s ca l q

u a r t er ended on December 25. Th e next day S un sent L awson a letter infor min g hi m that “ [a ] s of December 26, 2005, y ou wi l l tr ansi ti on to [S un’s] Data Management Gr oup Glob al S tor age S ales Compensati on Plan.” The December 26 l etter stated that Lawson w ould r ecei v e a copy of the p lan and a n indi v i dual goa l sheet “[o]n or about Januar y 15, 2 006.” The letter also assi gned L a wson a new ti tle: “S ales S p eci ali st 1 , DMG S ales. ” Lawson c ounter si gned the l etter , indi cating that he recei v ed and under stood i t. S u n di d not send hi m a copy of the new incenti v e plan unti l Mar ch 17, 2006. I n the meanti me, the JPMor gan Chase deal r emain e d i n li mbo. J PMor gan Chase conti nued to study S un’s October 11 bi d a nd asked for a $7 mi lli on pr i ce r educti on for the S un/IBM

c o m po n ent. On December 15, 2005, Lawson sent a d etai le d10 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503

e-mai l to S un management p r o p o s in g a s t r a t e gy fo r p e r s uading JPMor gan Chase to accept the deal. JPMor gan Chase ulti mately accepted only the fi r st par t of S un’s October 1 1 bi d—the c omponent consi stin g o f the j oi nt S un/IBM pr oposal and c onti nuati on of the ser v i ces S tor a geT ek had pr ev i ously pr ov i ded. JPMor gan Chase a nd IBM executed
a “Letter of Author i zati on”—essenti ally an agr eement to negoti ate in good fai th tow ar d a final agr eement or amendment of the S tatement of W or k by J a nuar y 3 0, 2006. The final amendment w asn’t i ssued unti l S eptember 29, 2006, but in the inter i m the par ti es i ssued sev er al letter s of intent in whi ch IBM agr e e d t o conti nue to w or k under the amendment to the S tatement of W

or k

. B e c a u s e J P M o r g an Chase only accepted the fi r st c omponent of the bi d, the d eal di d not r esul t in new business to S un or S tor ageT ek. On M a r ch 16, 2006, S un inter n a l ly r ecor ded the sale a s fin al, and on Mar ch 2 3, 2006, i ssued the fi r st inv oi ces forthe w or k.

C. The Dispute Over Lawson’s Commission A s t h e JPMor gan Chase s ale w as being finali z ed, Lawson conti nued to pur sue hi s commi ssi on. O n Febr uar y 22 he

r equested a “ max-dr aw” on h i s compensati on—a r equest that the company fr o n t hi s anti c i pated commi s si on. For the next
sev er a l weeks, S un ma n a gement tr i ed to deter mine the appr op r i ate commi ssi on for the sale. Lawson ar gued that the JPMor ga n C h ase w or k should be classi fi ed as E n ter pr i se S uppor t S er v i ces under the 2005 Stor ageT ek plan because that’s what i t w a s when he star ted pur suing the deal mor e than
a y ear ear li er

. New contr acts f o r Enter p r i se S u ppor t S er vi c esNos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 11

r ecei v ed the hi ghest per centage commi ssi on u n der the 2005 plan be c a u s e they consti tute new business to the company

. Wi th an agr eed annual pr i ce of $21.2 mi lli on for the JPMor gan Chase’s U.S

. busine s s and another $6.8 mi l li on for i ts w or ldwi de business, L awson’s commi ssi on under the 2 005 plan

w ould exceed $1.8 mi lli on. 1
Whi le these d is cu ssi ons w er e ongoi ng, S un pai d Lawson $17,000 on hi s dr a w r equest, fully r ecov er able i f the c ompany later de t e r mined that the commi ssi on w a s n ot ow ed. S un management ulti mately r ej ected Lawson’s r equest to tr eat the JPMor gan Chase d eal as Enter pr i se Su ppor t Ser v i c es u nder the 2005 plan. In li ght of the S un/S tor ageT ek mer ger

, the sale w as not new business, s o the company c o n cluded that the hi gher
com m i s si on w ould be an i mpr oper windfall to Lawson. S un sai d i t w ould tr eat the sale as a n a ssi gned r enew a l contr act under the 2006 plan, tr i gger ing a substanti ally low er commi ssi on. On Mar ch 17 and agai n on Mar ch 2 3, S un e-mai led Lawson
a copy of the 2006 in centi v e plan (techni cally called the “Data Ma n a g e m e n t G r o u p S a l e s C o m p e n s a t i o n Plan”). The plan i tself

w as dated Mar ch 13, 2006, and w as r etr oacti v el y effecti v e to December 26, 2005. On Apr i l 4 Lawson r ecei v ed hi s goal sheet, whi ch contai ned hi s indi v i dual s a l e s tar gets for the y ear

. Lawson r efused to si gn i t, fear ing that doi ng so w oul d pr ej u
di ce hi s c lai m to a lar ger c ommi ssi on for the JPMor gan Chase

1 Thi s fi gure i ncl uded a mul ti y ea r i ncenti v e, whi ch co ul d b e a w a rded to a
sa les ex ecuti v e fo r securi ng c o ntra cts o f tw o o r mo re y ea rs. Wi tho ut tha t i ncenti v e La wso n’s co mmi ssi o n w o ul d b e ab out $ 1 .5 mi l l io n.12 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503
deal. On May 12 S un e-mai l ed Lawson a r ev i se d g o a l sheet, whi ch tr eated the JPMor gan Chase sale as an assi gned r enew al and aw ar ded a commi s si on of $54,300. Lawson declin ed i t and

r efused to si gn the goal sheet.
Lawson ther eafter r etai ned counsel and on June 2 m a de a final d emand for a comm is s i o n for the J P Mor gan Chase sale under the ter ms of the 2005 S tor ageT ek p l a n

. S un declined to pay the demand

. I n October 2006 Lawson w as lai d off in a
r educti on i n for ce.

D. Litigation History
Lawson sued S un in Indi ana state cour t allegi ng clai ms for br each of contr act, quantum mer ui t, and v i olati on o f the Indi ana W

age Clai ms S tatute, I ND

. C OD E § § 22-2-9-1 et seq

. (author i z ing r ecov er y of penalty damages a nd a ttor ney’s fees). S un r emov ed the c a se to feder al cour t, see 28 U.S .C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(a), a nd fi l ed a counter clai m allegi n g that Lawson v i olated the I l li noi s and Cali for ni a eav esdr oppi n g statutes by secr etly

r ec o r d in g s e ve r a l t e l e p h o n e c onv er s ati ons wi th S un employ ees dur ing the di spute ov er the commi s s i on. S un mov ed for summar y j udgm e nt, and the di str i c t cour t gr anted the moti on in par t. The jud g e h eld that r eli ef under quantum mer u i t w as bar r ed because the par ti es had an expr ess contr act. The j udge also held that the eav esdr oppi ng c ounter

clai m could not pr oceed because Indi ana law appli ed (not the law of Illi noi s or Cali for ni a). Nei ther si de challenges these

r u lings, s o w e’ll say no m o r e about them. The j udge deni ed
summar y j udgment on the c ontr act and statutor y w age clai ms,Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 13
finding the plan documents ambi guous and a tr i al necessar y to deter mine li abi li ty

. The case w as tr i ed to a jur y , whi ch found S u n li able f o r br each of contr a ct and aw ar ded $1.5 mi l li on i n d a m a ges. On the statutor y clai m, how ev er , the j udge changed hi s mind and enter ed j u dgment for S un as a mat t e r of l aw , see F E D

. R. C I V

. P. 50(a), h olding that Lawson’s commi ssi ons w er e not “w ages” under the Indi ana statute. The j udge r ej ected S u n’s Rule 50(b) moti on for j u d g m e n t as a m atter of law on the c ontr act clai m and enter ed final judgme n t o n t he j ur y’s v er di ct. Both si des appealed.

II. Discussion
S un a rgues that Lawson’s contr a ct clai m fai l s as a matter of law because the 2005 incenti v e plan expi red on D ecember25, 2005, and the JPMor gan Chase sale w a s no t f inali z ed and inv oi ced unti l Mar ch 2006. L a ws o n counter s that the plan docume nt s ar e ambi guous and the ev i dence at tr i al w as suffi ci ent for a r easonable j ur y to conclude that S un intended the 2005 plan to r emain in effect thr ough at least Mar ch 2006. In hi s cr oss-appeal Laws o n ch a l l e n g e s th e d i s t r i c t c our t’s ruling on hi s statutor y clai m for unpai d w ages. W e r ev i ew the di str i ct cour t’s Rule 5 0(b) r u lin g s de nov o. Rapold v
. Baxter Int’l Inc. , 718 F .3d 602, 613 (7th Ci r

. 2013). J u d g ment as a matter of law i s p r oper i f “a r easonable j ur y
w ould not hav e a l egally suffi ci ent ev i d enti ar y b asi s to find for the p ar ty on that i ssue.” F E D

. R. C I V

. P

. 50(a)(1); see also May v
.14 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 Chrysler G rp., LLC, 7 16 F .3d 963, 970 (7th Ci r

. 2012). The par ti es agr ee that Indi ana law appli es.

A. W a iver A s a pr eli m inar y matter , Lawson ar gues that S un w a i v e d i ts pr i mar y legal ar gument about the inter p r etati on of the 2005 plan b y fai ling to r a i se i t at tr i al ina moti on for j u dgment as a matter of l aw under Rule 50(a) or in a posttr i al moti on under Rule 50(b). W

e di sagr ee. At the summar y
-j udgment s tage, S un speci fi cally ar gued that the 2006 in c enti v e plan—not the 2005 plan—contr olled as
a matter of law

. The dis tr i c t cour t found the plan documents ambi guous and allow ed the contr act clai m to p r oceed to tr i al. S un’s ar gument about the pr oper inter pr etati on of the plan i s mor e elabor a te on appeal than i t w as in the di str i ct cour t, but
no r ule pr ohibi ts a ppellate a mpli fi cati on of a p r oper ly pr eser v ed i ssue. See Y

ee v
. Escondido , 5 0 3 U.S

. 5 19, 5 34 (1992) (“Once a

... clai m i s pr oper ly pr esented, a par ty can make any
ar gument in suppor t of that clai m; par ti es ar e not li mi ted to the pr eci se ar guments they made below .”).
Nor w as S un r equi r ed to renew all the l e g a l a r guments i t made at the sum m a r y
-j udgment p hase when challenging the suffi ci ency of the tr i al ev i dence u nd e r Rule 50(a) and Rul e 5 0 ( b )

. As a gener al matter , w e d o not r ev i ew a deci si on denyi ng summar y j udgment once th e c a se has p r oceeded to tr i al; s ummar y j udgment r eli es on ev i denti ar y pr edi cti ons, whi ch ar e unnecessary once a j ur y has found the a ctual facts. Chemetall GmbH v
. ZR Ener gy , In c. , 320 F .3d 714, 718 (7th Ci r

.Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 15 2003). And although a Rule 50 moti on or d in ar i ly i s r equi r ed to pr eser v e a challenge to the suffi ci ency of the tr i al ev i dence, id. at 718–19, questi ons o f contr act inter pr etati on ar e d i ffer ent. They inv olv e pur e questi ons of law unr elated to the suffi ci ency of the tr i al e v i dence, s o i t’s n ot necessar y for summar yj udgment loser s to r eli ti gate pur ely legal is s ues of contr act inter p r etati on in a moti on under Rule 50(a) or (b). 2 Id

. a t 718–20.
S un’s pr inci pal ar gument on appeal r ai s es a pur ely legal questi on of contr act in t e r pr etati on: Based on the l anguage of the plan docu m e n ts, does S tor ageT ek’s 2005 incenti v e plan apply to the JPMor gan Chase s ale? Sun p r eser v ed thi s i ssue a t the summar y-j udgment stage. And because i t has no bea r ing
on the su f f ic i ency of the tr i a l ev i dence, S un di d not need to

r a i se i t a g a in in i ts Rule 50(a) a nd (b) moti ons. The ar gument

w as not w ai v ed.

B. The 2005 Incentive Plan Does Not Apply Under Indi ana law “[t]he unambi gu o us l anguage of a contr act i s conclusiv e upon the par ti es to the contr act and u pon

2 There’s a spl i t o f a utho ri ty o n thi s po i nt, a s w e no ted in Ch em etall Gm b H v
. ZR Ener gy , Inc. 3 2 0 F .3 d 7 1 4 , 7 1 9 (7 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( c i t i ng Ch esap eake Pap er Prod s. Co. v
. Stone & W

eb ster Eng ’g Corp

. , 5 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 12 3 9 (4 th Ci r

. 1 9 9 5 ));
see also Ji v
. Bose Corp

. , 6 2 6 F .3 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 7

– 2 8 (1 st Ci r

. 2 0 1 0 ) (refusi ng t o
reco gni z e a n ex cepti on fo r purel y l ega l cl a i ms). The S upreme Co u rt di d n ot
reso l v e the q

uesti o n i n O rtiz v
. Jord an

. 1 3 1 S

. Ct. 8 8 4 , 8 9 2 (2 0 1 1 ) (refusi ng t o
a d dress whether a qua l i fi ed-i mmuni ty defense b a sed purel y o n a l eg a l questi o n needed to b e renew ed i n apo sttri a l Rul e 5 0 mo ti o n).16 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503
the cour ts.” Whitaker v
. Brunner, 814 N .E.2d 288, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quotati on mar ks om i t t e d )

. E x t r in s i c e v i d e n ce of the par ti es’ intent i s per mi tted only when the contr act i s ambi guous or uncer tai n in i ts ter ms, in whi ch case the questi on of the par ti es’ in tent i s one for the fact fin der

. T rustcorp Mortg. Co. v
. Metro Mortg. Co. , 867 N.E.2d 2 03, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). But

“ [i ]f the c ontr act l anguage i s clear a nd unambi guous, th e document i s in ter pr eted a s a matter of law w i thout looki ng to extr insi c ev i dence.” BKCAP , LLC v
. CAPTEC Franchise T rust 2000-1 , 5 72 F .3d 353, 359 (7th Ci r

. 2009) (India n a l a w). “A contr act i s not ambi guous mer ely b ecause the par ti es d i s agr ee
as to i ts pr oper c onstr ucti on; r ather , a contr act w i ll be found to be ambi guous only i f r easonable per s ons w ould di ffer as to the meaning of i ts ter ms.” Allen Cnty

. Pub. Library v
. Shambaugh & Son, L.P

. , 997 N.E.2d 48, 52 ( In d. C t. App. 2013) (quoti ng V incennes Univ

. v
. Sparks , 988 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)). The relev ant language in the 2005 incenti v e plan i s not ambi guous. As amended on S eptember 1, 2005, the plan fi xed
a c lear and defini te expi r ati on date f or the plan y ea r : December 25, 2005. Mor e speci fi cally , the S eptember 1 amendment stated that “S tor ageT ek has adopted S un’s fi s c al calendar for incenti v e compensati on pur poses. S un’s

... s econd fiscal quar ter (Q2) ends December 25, 2 0 0 5

. Ther efor e, the cur r ent incenti v e pl a n y ear for S tor a geT ek wi ll end December 25, 2005.”
Lawson r esi s ts the for ce of thi s expli ci t ter minati on d a te b y inv oki ng the pr o v i si on w e hav e block-quoted abov e, whi ch states (among other thi n gs) that the plan “wi ll r emain in effectNos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 17

unti l a subsequent plan, or amendment to the P lan, becom es effecti v e. ” I n Lawson’s v i ew thi s pr ov i si on confli cts w i th the fi xed expi rati on date speci fi ed in the S eptember 1 a mendment,

cr eati ng an in ter nal ambi gui ty

. The di str i ct cour t a g r eed, deni ed summar y j udgment, a nd allow ed Lawson to pr esent extr insi c ev i d ence a t tr i al bear ing on S un’s intent that the plan conti nue bey ond the ter minati on date. That w as a mi stake. Contr actual phr a ses ar e not r ead in i solati o n ; r ather

, the contr act must be r ead as a whole. A llen Cnty

. Pub. Library, 997 N.E.2d at 52. Mor eov er , Indi ana cour ts pr efer “an inter pr etati on of the co n tr act that har moni zes i ts pr ov is i ons, as opposed to one that causes the pr ov i si ons to confli ct.” Four Seasons Mfg. v
. 1001 Coliseum, LLC, 8 7 0 N. E .2d 494, 5 01 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Read hol i s ti cally and har moni zed, these pr ov i si ons ar e not i n tensi on wi th each other

. As w e’v e noted, Lawson’s ar gument rel i es heav i ly on the concluding p ar a gr aph in the unamended 2005 plan, whi ch w e hav e quoted in full abov e. T h a t p ar agr aph contai n s the following key ter ms: (1) the 2005 ince n t iv e plan i s exclusi v e, i .e., i t’s the only compen s a t ion plan in place for S tor ageT ek’s 2005 fi s cal y ear ; (2) the plan i s effecti v e Januar y 1, 2 005, ev en i f publi shed later ; (3) the plan super sedes any pr ev i ous plan and conti nue s in effect unti l a s ubsequent plan or amendment becomes effecti v e; a nd (4) t h e only sales eli gible for commi ssi on cr edi t u n der the 2005 plan ar e those m eeti ng all plan

r e q ui r ements by the end of fi scal y ear 2005. Th e S eptember 1 amendment substi tuted S un’s fi scal y ear for S tor ageT ek’s and fi xed a defini te ter minati on d a te for S tor ageT ek’s then-cur r ent plan y ear : December25, 2005.18 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503
R ead together

, these pr ov i si ons unambi guously establi sh that to qu ali fy for commi ssi on cr edi t under Stor ageT ek’s 2005 plan, a sale must meet all eli gibi li ty r equi r ements b y the end of the plan year

, that i s, by December 25, 2 005. The JPMor gan Chase sale plainly di d not quali fy

. Lawson pr oposes an alter nati v e inter pr etati on: Although the plan year ended on December 25, 2 0 0 5 (by v i rtue of the language in the S eptem b e r 1 amendment), the plan itself conti nued in effect bey ond that date unti l a new plan became effecti v e. And becau s e S u n di d n ot tr ansmi t the 2006 plan to h i m u nti l Mar ch 17—the day after S un inter n a lly r ecogn iz e d the JPMor gan Chase deal as final (on Mar ch 16)—he i s enti tled to a commi ssi on underthe 2005 plan. Ther e a r e s ev er al pr oblems wi th thi s inter pr etati on. Fi r st, the 2 005 plan unequiv ocally states that “[a]ll sales eli gible for quota cr edi t under t h is Plan, or any a mendment, by the end of f i scal year 2005 wi ll be pay able under thi s Plan.” (Em p h a s is added.) Another pr ov i si on makes it clear that new contr acts must be inv oi ced dur ing the 2 005 fi scal y ear to recei v e commi ssi on cr edi t: Both c ontract execution and initial invoicing must
occur during the Storage T e k Fiscal Y

ear t o count a s Comp Revenue , unless deter min ed other w i se in S tor ageT ek’s sole d i s cr eti on. If a contr a ct i s fully
e x ecuted pr i or to Januar y 1, 2005 a nd n ot in
v oi ced unt i l Januar y 1, or later in 2005, i t wi ll count as Comp Rev enue underthi s Plan. (Emphasi s added.)Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 19
Mor eov er

, the 2 0 05 plan i s expli ci t that “[s]ales not eli gible [under thi s plan] w i ll be pay able u nder the Plan in effect at the ti me quota cr edi t i s ear ned.” Thi s pr ov i si on contemplates the li kelihood that sales may be in pr o gr ess in 2 005 b ut not finali z ed and inv oi ced u n t i l later , a nd s p eci fi cally pr ov i des that quota cr edi t for these sales i s aw ar ded under the ter m s of the plan in effect when cr edi t i s ear n ed—i .e

. , under a successor p l a n, not the 2005 plan. In other w or ds, sales in p r ogr ess but not y et inv oi ced when the 2005 plan y e a r e x pi res ar e not gr andfather ed into the 2005 plan. Fi nally , S un’s 2006 incenti v e plan, though dated and deli v er ed to Laws o n o n Mar ch 17, 2006, w as made fully r etr oacti v e to December 26, 2005. If mor e wer e needed to demonstr a te the flaws in Lawson’s inter p r etati on, the 2005 plan speci fi cally r equi r e d t hat sales executi v es submi t all payment r equests f or 2005 c ommi ssi ons
no l ater than 30 days after the close of the 2005 fi scal y ear

. That

r equi r ement w ould be i mpossi ble to fu l fi ll for sales sti ll in pr ogr ess and not y et i nv oi ced when the fi scal y ear expi r ed. In shor t, Lawson’s p r oposed inter p r etati on cannot be

r econci led wi th key plan r equi r ements f or commi ssi on eli gib i li ty

. T o the c o ntr ar y

, accepting Lawson’s inter pr etati on w ould

r equi r e us to r ewr i te the most i m por tant ter ms of the compensati on plan to make the JPMor gan Chase deal quali fy for commi s si on cr edi t w i th o ut fulfi lling any of the r equi r ements
necessar y to ear n a commi ssi on under the 2005 p lan. That, b y defini ti on, mak es Lawson’s pr oposed in ter pr etati on an
unr easonable one. See Hepburn v
. T ri-Cnty

. Bank

, 84 2 N.E.2d 378, 384 ( Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (explaining that Indi ana c our ts do not “ add pr ov i si ons to a contr act that w er e n ot placed ther e b y20 Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 the par ti es”); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v . Guzor ek , 690 N.E.2d 664, 669 (Ind. 1997) (“[T]he pow er to inter pr et contr acts d oes not extend to changi n g thei r ter ms.”). In addi ti on to these intr atextual di ffi culti es, the compensati on plan a s w r it t e n i s not r eadi ly amenable to judi ci a l gapfi lling. As w e’v e explai n ed, the plan tr eated new and r enew al business di ffer ently

. New b usiness r ecei v ed the hi ghest commi s si on; r enew al contr acts r ecei v ed no commi ssi on unless speci fi cally assi gned to a sales executi v e as p ar t of hi s r ev enue quota, and these commi ssi on r ates w er e lo w e r than for new business. If the 2005 plan co n t in ued b ey ond fi scal y ear 2005 and cov er ed sales finali zed a nd inv oi c e d in 2006, v exi ng questi ons w ould ar i se about how to calcul a t e c ommi ssi ons. Business mi ght be consi d er ed new in 2005 (and ther e f o r e compensable at the hi ghest r ate) but not new in 2 0 06, when the commi s si on i s a c tually ear ned. Commi ssi ons based on 2005 assi gned r enew als li kewi se could hav e a di ffer ent status in 2006—includin g, for example, a r educed commi s s i o n r ate i f the p r ofi tabi l i ty of a deal declined ov er ti me. Thi s in ter pr e t iv e di ffi culty bolster s our conclusi on that Lawson’s pr efer r ed

r eading of the plan i s not a r easonable one. The par ti es s pi ll a lot of ink debati ng Lawson’s status as an at-wi ll employ ee; the meaning of S un’s December 26 , 2 0 05 letter ; the effect of Lawson’s r efusal to si gn hi s 2006 goal sheet (and rev i sed goal sheet); and the par ti es’ cour se of conduct in late 2005 and ear l y 2006 as the negoti ati ons ov er the di sputed commi s si on u nfolded. Because the plan l an g u age i s not
a m b i guous, thi s extr insi c ev i dence s i mply dr ops out of t he case. The tr i al w as unnecessary

.Nos. 13-1502 & 13-1503 21
In sum, the JPMor gan Chase sale unambi guously di d n ot q u ali fy for a commi ssi on under the 2005 p lan. And beca u s e Lawson w as not enti tled to a commi s si on under the 2005 plan, hi s clai m for unpai d w ages under t h e I n d i ana W a ge Clai ms S tatute necessar i ly fai ls. Accor dingly

, we R E V E RS E the di str i ct cour t’s j u dgment and R E MANDwi th i nstr ucti ons to enter j udgment for S u n.