With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pa. Cmwlth. 651, 630 A.2d 948, 956-57 (1993)). The three-fourths guarantee payments that Plaintiffs sought from Defendants were not for services rendered, nor were they “then accrued fringe benefits.” W.Va.Code § 21-5-l(e). Instead, the three-fourths guarantee payments arose as a result of Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs the opportunity to work for the entire length of the contract period. Consequently, we conclude that payments made to migrant workers pursuant to provisions required by federal law which mandate that an employer/grower must guarantee work for three-fourths of the contractual period or make payments in lieu of providing such work opportunity do not constitute wages as defined by the Act. See also Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms, 743 F.2d 638, 642 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we find that the circuit court

A: holding that the definition of average weekly wages and the range of alternatives set forth in the five methods of computing such wages as specified in the first two paragraphs of ncgs  9725 do not allow the inclusion of wages or income earned in employment or work other than that in which the employee was injured
B: holding that threequarter guarantee payments were not wages under arizona wage payment laws permitting treble damages for nonpayment under rationale that wages are restricted to compensation due an employee in return for work performed
C: holding that a plaintiff cannot assert a statutory claim for wages under the labor law if he has no enforceable contractual right to those wages
D: holding that in private action for damages under this chapter plaintiff may initially recover lost wages and in addition he may recover liquidated damages in amount equal to unpaid wages but only when violation is willful
B.