Opinion ID: 1198872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wisconsin Energy's Obligations

Text: Finally, Wisconsin Energy argues that the agreement only set out its minimum obligations when giving a reference and, with one exception, does not limit what it can tell those who call for a reference. To reiterate, the two relevant sentences setting out Wisconsin Energy's end of the bargain state: Wisconsin [Energy] agrees to respond to any request for a reference regarding Matthews in a manner that is consistent with the Wisconsin [Energy] policy in place regarding reference checks at the time. Wisconsin [Energy] will not respond to any request for a reference regarding Matthews by indicating that Matthews was terminated or fired Under Wisconsin Energy's reading, the first sentence sets out the minimum information that must be contained in its response to a reference request, and the second sentence sets out the only kind of information that it cannot disclose. Thus, the disclosure of information beyond that required by its policy in place ... at the time does not constitute a breach  so long as Wisconsin Energy does not indicate[ ] that Matthews was terminated or fired. To hold otherwise, Wisconsin Energy contends, would be to impermissibly read a non-disparagement provision into the contract. The district court implicitly agreed with this characterization, stating that Wisconsin Energy ultimately complied with its policies when responding to a reference check. This reading is not implausible. Wisconsin courts have long recognized that the specific mention of an obligation tends to exclude related others not mentioned. Larson v. Watzke, 218 Wis. 59, 59, 259 N.W. 712 (Wis.1935) (citing maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius in interpreting contractual term). But such a construction is not inevitable. The first sentence does not affirmatively indicate that Wisconsin Energy can give any additional information it wants beyond what's called for by its policy. Wisconsin Energy agreed to respond in a manner that is consistent with [its] policy in place regarding reference checks at the time. Consistent means coexisting and showing no noteworthy opposing, conflicting, inharmonious, or contradictory qualities. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 484 (1981). It's possible that Wisconsin Energy could provide information that is both beyond that required by its policy and inharmonious with the provisions set out there. Further, the second sentence could just as easily be an explicit exception to Wisconsin Energy's policy in place regarding reference checks at the time. That is, if the policy called for an explanation of whether the employee was terminated or fired, this second sentence would modify the disclosures as they pertained to Matthews. This provision is thus fairly susceptible of more than one construction, Mgmt. Computer Svces, Inc., 206 Wis.2d at 177, 557 N.W.2d 67, and this creates an ambiguity. When a contract provision is ambiguous, and therefore must be construed by the use of extrinsic evidence, the question is one of contract interpretation for the jury. Id. Thus, it is for the jury to decide both what the intent of the parties was with respect to this section and, as discussed in the next section, whether Wisconsin Energy breached the contract.