LOCKHEED MARTIN AND ACE USA, APPELLANTS,
v.
LINDA GRZEGORCZYK, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lockheed Martin and Ace USA appealed a workers' compensation order that included employer contributions to an employee's Capital Accumulation Plan (CAP) in calculating average weekly wage (AWW). The court reversed, holding that CAP contributions are fringe benefits excluded from the statutory definition of wages under Florida law.
The court held that the CAP contributions are fringe benefits and therefore must be excluded from the average weekly wage computation. Although the contributions may be characterized as deferred wages, they fall within the excluded fringe benefits category under the statutory definition of wages.
[1] Employer contributions to a Capital Accumulation Plan (CAP) are considered fringe benefits and are excluded from the computation of an employee's average weekly wage for…
[2] Fringe benefits, as defined by statute, are not included within the definition of wages for the purpose of computing average weekly wage in workers' compensation cases.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the CAP savings plan should be excluded from Appel-lee's AWW computation because it is a fringe benefit not included within the definition of wages pursuant to section 440.02(24), Florida Statutes (1997)”
The court's holding on the main issue regarding exclusion of CAP contributions from wage calculations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee worked on a government contract at Tyndall Air Force Base where the U.S. Department of Labor mandated an hourly benefits package of $2.56 per…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellants appeal the final workers’ compensation order ruling that Appellee’s average weekly wage (“AWW”) computation includes the employer’s contributions to her Capital Accumulation Plan (“CAP”). Appellants argue that these CAP contributions are not included within the definition of wages, for purposes of computing AWW, pursuant to section 440.02(24), Florida Statutes (1997). We agree and therefore reverse.
The Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) explained how the CAP is funded:
When the employer contracts with the United States Government for a specified number of employee hours to provide services, the U.S. Department of Labor sets a level of benefits that the contractor must pay each employee working under the contract. For the contract at Tyndall Air Force Base the benefits are set at $2.56 per hour for all productive hours worked on the contract. Holiday pay, sick leave pay and unpaid absences are excluded. The employer has no input into the determination of the hourly package which is established solely by the government. The employer then provides various fringe benefits such as medical, dental, vision, life insurance, sick leave and short term disability pay. When the cost of those fringe benefits are calculated and totaled, any differential between that amount and $2.56 per hour is paid into the Capital Accumulation Plan of each employee. For the first quarter of 1998, $1.59 per hour was paid into the CAP plan of each employee. For the second quarter of 1998 $1.40 per hour was paid into the employee CAP plan.
The JCC concluded that the CAP savings plan for each employee is “deferred wages” and therefore should be included in the AWW computation.
However, we conclude that the CAP savings plan should be excluded from Appel-lee’s AWW computation because it is a fringe benefit not included within the definition of wages pursuant to section 440.02(24), Florida Statutes (1997). See Orange County School Board v. Muscanell, 705 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(holding that although vested sick leave pay was taxable when the employee collected payment upon being sick or leaving employment, it should not be included in computing AWW because it is an excluded fringe benefit).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for entry of an order determining Appellee’s AWW excluding the employer’s contribution to her CAP savings plan.
WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd. & United Self Insured Servs. v. Muscanell, 705 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)