converted to a cash equivalent in the same way as regular wages or the reasonable value of lodging. Id. at 630, 103 S.Ct at 2048-49, 76 L.Ed.2d at 199. The Court also noted that the legislative history indicated that Congress did not intend to include these types of fringe benefits when calculating the rate of compensation benefits. Id. at 632, 103 S.Ct. at 2050, 76 L.Ed.2d at 201. The majority trend is to treat an employer’s matching contribution to a 401k plan as a welfare benefit that falls under the category of “fringe benefits,” and thus is not included in the calculation of weekly benefits for workers’ compensation purposes. 8 Arthur Larson et. al., Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 93.01[2][b], at 93-20 (rev. ed.2015); cf. City of Lamar v. Koehn, 9 .E.2d 449, 463 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Clopton v. City of Muskogee, 147 P.3d 282,
holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed holding that an employers policy requiring female employees to make larger pension fund contributions than male employees was discriminatory on its face in violation of title vii holding that weekly wages are calculated using a claimants pretax pay and therefore it was not unjust for the collective bargaining agreement to exclude employer payments to an employees pension plan from the definition of wage holding that an employers contributions to an employees retirement account are not included in the calculation of a weekly wage for workers compensation purposes holding that twoyear period for requesting hearing after employers controversion only applies to employees written claim for workers compensation benefits