Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Lena Brooks asks for $80 in unpaid wages from Owen Mercer. She says Owen requested that she work on Thursday from 5 to 9 p.m. labeling a delivery, that she completed the four-hour shift, and that her final payment covered only 30 scheduled hours at $20 per hour. Owen says he paid for the 30 hours shown on his weekly schedule. He does not claim to have personally observed whether Lena worked that evening and has no separate time record for it. 2. The hearing record includes Owen’s weekly paper schedule, which lists 30 assigned hours and ends Thursday at 5 p.m. It has no evening-shift entry and no space for clock-out signatures. Lena refers to text messages and a final payment statement, but neither document was presented. The court decides the claim on the record actually available, not on documents described but not produced. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Lena proved that she worked four additional hours and whether she proved that $80 for those hours remained unpaid. Under Rule 1, Lena bears the burden because she is asking for payment. Rule 25 directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 6 requires any remedy to match the harm established. Submissions of the parties 4. Lena’s account is that Owen asked her to work Thursday from 5 to 9 p.m. labeling a delivery, she accepted and completed the shift, and the final payment covered 30 scheduled hours at $20 per hour, or $600. She says the four omitted hours therefore add up to $80. In her final statement, she argues that Owen’s inability to say she did not work means that she did work. 5. Owen responds that the schedule lists the 30 hours he paid and does not show an evening shift. He fairly acknowledges that the schedule cannot establish that Lena did not work later, because it has no clock-out signatures and may not capture extra assignments. He also acknowledges that he has no separate record or firsthand knowledge of the evening. He asks the court to deny the request or award only hours the evidence establishes. Evidence and findings 6. The schedule is a presented exhibit and is relevant evidence of the hours assigned and recorded. It supports Owen’s account that the scheduled work was 30 hours and that no evening shift appears on the schedule. Its silence is not conclusive: the schedule has no clock-out signatures, and the record does not establish that every extra assignment would necessarily be entered there. The court therefore does not find that the schedule proves Lena did not work the shift. 7. Lena’s statements provide a specific and consistent account of the alleged shift, its task, its hours, and the rate used in her calculation. But the statements are submissions, not the text messages or payment statement themselves. The messages are described as showing that Owen requested the shift and Lena accepted it. Even if that description is accurate, an agreement to work does not by itself establish that the work was completed. The payment statement is likewise described but unavailable for review. 8. Owen’s statements establish that he paid for the 30 scheduled hours, according to his account. They do not establish that no additional work occurred. His lack of firsthand knowledge is a meaningful limit on his evidence, but it is not affirmative proof of Lena’s account. The court does not treat Owen’s inability to disprove the shift as proof that it happened. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Lena has not met her burden to show that she completed four additional hours. Her account is detailed, and the schedule does not rule out extra work. Those points support her claim. However, the most direct corroboration she identifies—the messages—is not in the record, and the schedule contains no evening entry. The record has no presented time record, witness account, or other evidence confirming completion. Under Rule 1, the remaining uncertainty falls on Lena, who bears the burden. Rule 2 favors reliable records where available, but the court does not treat the schedule as decisive given its stated limitations. The finding is not that Lena certainly did not work; it is that the available evidence does not establish that she did. 10. On the second issue, Lena’s arithmetic is straightforward: four hours multiplied by $20 per hour equals $80. Her account also says the final payment covered 30 scheduled hours totaling $600. But the amount is payable only if the additional hours were earned and remained unpaid. Because the work itself is not established, the calculation alone cannot establish an unpaid wage balance. The payment statement was not presented, so the court cannot independently verify the payment account. Under Rule 25 and Rule 6, the requested amount is not proven on this record. 11. The court has considered Lena’s argument that Owen’s inability to deny the shift should resolve the uncertainty in her favor. It does not. Owen’s candid acknowledgment prevents the schedule from being overstated, but it does not transfer Lena’s burden to him. The court also considered Owen’s request for a reduced award. No number of hours below four is independently established, so there is no supported basis for a partial wage award. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Owen Mercer. Lena Brooks’s claim for $80 in unpaid wages is denied. No payment is ordered from Owen to Lena. This ruling reflects the failure of proof on the available record; it is not a finding that the alleged shift could not have occurred. No other relief is granted.