Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Erin Phelps brings a wage claim against Thimble Finch Supplies LLC for $80. She says she spent four hours on a Saturday unpacking stock and labeling shelves, at an agreed rate of $20 per hour, and received no pay for those hours. The defendant says Saturday was an optional familiarization visit and that Erin’s scheduled employment began Monday. 2. The hearing record includes the parties’ submissions and a photograph of Erin’s notebook entry reading, “Saturday, 9–1, unpacked boxes, shelf labels, 4 hours.” Erin says she wrote it that evening. The defendant acknowledges that Erin visited the shop on Saturday. The defendant describes hiring and payroll records but did not present those records as exhibits. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Erin proved that Saturday was paid work and, if so, whether $80 remains unpaid. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections. Rule 6 requires a remedy tied to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Erin argues that the Saturday tasks were useful shop preparation, not merely looking around. She relies on her recollection that she was asked to help and on the notebook photo as support for the hours and tasks. She acknowledges that the note is her own record and is not a message from the shop. She asks for $80, calculated as four hours at $20 per hour. 5. The defendant argues that Saturday was an optional preview, that Erin’s formal employment began Monday, and that its weekday payroll records show no Saturday hours. It says the notebook entry cannot establish that the shop authorized or assigned paid work. The defendant asks that the claim be denied. Evidence and findings 6. The notebook photo is presented evidence, not an automatically conclusive record. Its specific entry and claimed same-evening timing support Erin’s account that she recorded four hours of unpacking and labeling. The defendant disputes that the recorded activity was assigned work, not the existence of the note itself. The note does not identify who asked Erin to do the tasks, what was said, or whether the shop expected her to perform them. 7. Erin’s account that she was asked to help is direct evidence of her recollection. It is consistent with the tasks recorded in the note and with the defendant’s acknowledgment that she visited the shop. But the record contains no independent message, schedule, or other evidence of the request or expectation. The absence of written proof does not by itself disprove Erin’s account; it does leave the court to weigh that account against the defendant’s contrary explanation. 8. The defendant’s submissions repeatedly refer to official hiring and payroll records and state that those records show a Monday start and no Saturday hours. The records themselves are not in evidence. The court therefore does not treat the defendant’s description of them as independently verified proof. The defendant’s account is consistent across its submissions, but the asserted records cannot be given the weight of documents actually presented and examined. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Erin has the burden to prove that the Saturday activity was paid work. The notebook photo supports the time and tasks she recorded, and the defendant’s acknowledgment supports that she was at the shop. Those facts make it plausible that she performed useful tasks. They do not, without more, establish that the shop asked or expected her to perform them as paid work. The decisive point is not simply whether the tasks benefited the shop, but whether the evidence establishes the work-related request or expectation Erin relies on. 10. Erin’s recollection supports that request, but it is disputed and has no independent corroboration in this record. The defendant’s Monday-start account is also not independently verified by the described records. Weighing the evidence as a whole, the notebook and the acknowledged visit do not resolve the central uncertainty about what was said or expected. Because Erin bears the burden, that uncertainty means the Saturday-work issue is not proven. This finding does not establish that the visit was definitely optional; it means the evidence does not sufficiently establish Erin’s claim that it was paid work. 11. On the second issue, the arithmetic is straightforward: four hours at the stated $20 rate equals $80. Erin says she received nothing for Saturday, while the defendant says it paid scheduled work beginning Monday. But the $80 is recoverable only if Saturday wages were earned. Since Erin has not proved that Saturday was paid work, the record does not establish that the defendant owed her the $80. The court does not find that the defendant’s unproduced payroll records prove payment for Saturday; rather, the underlying wage obligation has not been established. 12. The requested remedy is limited to the stated $80 and is proportionate if the wage obligation were proven. The claim nevertheless fails on proof of that obligation. No other remedy or amount is supported by the record. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Thimble Finch Supplies LLC on Erin Phelps’s wage claim. Erin’s request for $80 is denied, and no payment is ordered. This judgment rests on Erin’s failure to prove that Saturday was paid work; it does not treat the defendant’s descriptions of unproduced hiring or payroll records as established documentary facts.