## Facts

- Bernadine E. Matthews worked for Wisconsin Energy (then Wisconsin Gas) from 1980 until taking leave in 1996 after an on-the-job customer attack; she never returned.
- While on leave and after her departure, Matthews participated in or pursued employment-related disputes, including a discrimination claim that was settled.
- The parties executed separation agreements in 1999 and 2003 requiring Wisconsin Energy to provide employment references; the company maintained a policy of providing limited, neutral reference information (employment dates, final salary, and final job title).
- When Matthews sought new employment after completing a four-year degree, prospective employers contacted Wisconsin Energy for references.
- In at least one background check, Wisconsin Energy initially stated Matthews had never worked there, but later corrected the information; the company attributed the error to difficulties confirming employment data across databases.
- Matthews claimed she was denied a management job at Midwest Airlines due to a negative reference, but she did not produce admissible evidence that Midwest Airlines actually communicated with Wisconsin Energy about her.
- In 2005, Matthews engaged a consultant, Howard Schwartz, who contacted Wisconsin Energy seeking information about Matthews’s work history and performance in connection with employment for individuals receiving Social Security benefits.
- Schwartz spoke by phone with Wisconsin Energy’s in-house counsel, Lynne English; Schwartz alleged English suggested Matthews might be “gaming” the Social Security system and said the request was sensitive because Matthews had pending legal action against the company, while English disputed that account and said she declined a phone discussion due to ongoing litigation and later provided written reference information.
- Matthews sued, alleging retaliation based on post-employment references, breach of separation/settlement obligations, and related state-law theories; the district court granted summary judgment for Wisconsin Energy on all claims and awarded attorneys’ fees to Wisconsin Energy as the prevailing party.

## Issues

1. Whether Wisconsin Energy’s post-employment reference-related conduct constituted materially adverse action sufficient to support a federal retaliation claim.
2. Whether Matthews produced admissible evidence connecting any allegedly negative or misleading reference to a specific adverse hiring outcome and to her protected activity.
3. Whether Wisconsin Energy’s conduct breached the parties’ separation agreements requiring employment references.
4. Whether an attorneys’ fee award to Wisconsin Energy as the prevailing party could stand after appellate review of the merits.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Wisconsin Energy on claims resting on speculation or lack of admissible evidence, including the Midwest Airlines non-hire theory.
- The court held that the corrected “never worked here” misstatement, without proof of a resulting hiring denial tied to the misstatement, did not establish actionable retaliation on the record presented.
- The court reversed summary judgment in part, holding that disputed testimony about the 2005 English–Schwartz conversation created a triable issue whether Wisconsin Energy made reference-related comments that could dissuade a reasonable worker from protected activity and could negatively influence prospective employment.
- To the extent the surviving theory overlapped with contractual reference obligations, the court allowed related separation-agreement claims to proceed.
- Because Wisconsin Energy was no longer the unqualified prevailing party after partial reversal, the court vacated the district court’s attorneys’ fee award.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII retaliation requires evidence of a materially adverse action—conduct that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge—and a causal connection to protected activity; post-employment references can qualify.
- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment must present admissible evidence linking an allegedly retaliatory reference to a concrete adverse employment outcome; unsupported assertions about employer communications are insufficient.
- Where the content and meaning of an employer’s reference-related communication are genuinely disputed and could reasonably be understood as retaliatory, summary judgment is improper.
- Contract claims based on agreed reference obligations fail where alleged breach is speculative, but may proceed where evidence suggests the employer deviated from promised or neutral reference practices in a manner tied to the former employee’s legal activity.
- A fee award premised on prevailing-party status must be reconsidered when an appellate court reverses in part on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of reference-based theories lacking admissible proof of causation, but reinstated retaliation and related separation-agreement claims arising from a disputed 2005 reference-related conversation that could be viewed as retaliatory, and it vacated the attorneys’ fee award because Wisconsin Energy was no longer the prevailing party on all claims.


Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 534 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2008)