# Citynet, LLC v. Ray Toney

> West Virginia Supreme Court · February 6, 2015 · 235 W. Va. 79

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805967

## Case

- **Full name:** CITYNET, LLC, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. Ray TONEY, Plaintiff Below, Respondent
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 6, 2015
- **Citations:** 235 W. Va. 79; 772 S.E.2d 36; 24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 199; 2015 W. Va. LEXIS 107
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ketchum
- **Judges:** Davis, Ketchum
- **Nature of suit:** Tort, Contract, and Real Property
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805967

## Opinion text

Justice KETCHUM,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority decision. As I read Citynet’s Employee Incentive Plan, the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the entire balance of his vested fringe benefits when he quit.
In Syllabus Point 5 of Adkins v. American Mine Research, Inc., 234 W.Va. 328 , 765 S.E.2d 217 (2014), this Court reaffirmed the principle that the determination of whether a fringe benefit is a “wage” payable under the Wage Payment and Collection Act “is governed by the terms of the employment agreement, whether written or in the form, of a consistently applied unwritten ■ policy.” According to § 5.7(b) of the written Incentive Plan, the plaintiff was only entitled.to redeem up to a maximum of 20% of his vested balance each calendar year. Citynet appears *99 to have structured the plan to maintain the stability of its investments in the Incentive Plan, and to only allow employees to make withdrawals at limited times, in limited amounts. I am not wholly convinced that the majority opinion’s interpretation of the Incentive Plan is correct, because it interprets the written language in a way that destabilizes the Incentive Plan for employees other than the plaintiff.
Put simply, I would have reversed the cirquit court and entered judgment in favor of the employer.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805967. Public record. Not legal advice.