## Facts

- Lucille Robertson and Kelly Gleockler worked for Opequon Motors, Inc., an automobile dealership, as commissioned salespeople paid primarily by commissions with a draw against future commissions.
- The dealership maintained written policies, including an employee handbook addressing holiday pay, vacation pay, and payroll deductions.
- The handbook listed designated holidays for which employees would be paid without working; for commissioned employees, holiday pay was calculated based on the employee’s daily draw.
- The employees testified the dealership failed to pay them for certain designated holidays despite the stated policy.
- The dealership offered paid vacation benefits but did not pay vacation wages when vacations were taken; instead, it paid a lump sum of “vacation pay” on February 15 of the following year.
- The dealership made payroll deductions from the employees’ wages for items including credit card processing charges and repair costs related to vehicles the employees sold.
- The employees sued under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), alleging unlawful withholding/timing of wages and unlawful deductions.
- A jury found WPCA violations and awarded damages; the circuit court entered judgment and awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- The circuit court denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that the employer violated the WPCA by (a) not paying promised holiday pay, (b) delaying payment of vacation wages, and (c) making payroll deductions for credit card fees and repair costs.
2. Whether the circuit court properly awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the employees as prevailing parties under the WPCA.
3. Under the JNOV standard, whether the jury’s verdict was against the plain preponderance of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in all respects.
- The court held the evidence, viewed favorably to the employees, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find WPCA violations as to holiday pay, vacation pay timing, and the challenged deductions.
- The court declined to reweigh conflicting trial evidence and applied a deferential standard to the jury verdict and denial of JNOV.
- The court upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs because the employees succeeded on WPCA claims and no special circumstances made a fee award unjust.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a denial of JNOV, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; reversal is proper only if the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the verdict.
- A jury verdict based on conflicting testimony and approved by the trial court will not be set aside unless it is against the plain preponderance of the evidence.
- The WPCA is remedial legislation intended to protect employees and assist in collecting compensation wrongly withheld; it is construed to prevent unauthorized withholding or delay of earned pay.
- Promised compensation such as holiday pay and vacation pay may constitute “wages” under the WPCA and must be paid within statutory time limits once earned.
- The WPCA restricts wage deductions to those permitted by statute; deductions that shift employer business expenses or risks to employees may violate the Act absent authorization.
- A prevailing employee on a WPCA claim should ordinarily recover costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, unless special circumstances render such an award unjust.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict that an auto dealership violated the WPCA by failing to pay certain promised holiday wages, postponing payment of vacation wages until the following year, and deducting credit card fees and repair costs from employee pay, and it upheld the resulting attorney’s fee and cost award to the prevailing employees.


Robertson v. Opequon Motors, Inc., 205 W. Va. 560, 519 S.E.2d 843 (W. Va. 1999)