Portland small claims court denies $80 wage claim over disputed café closing shift
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
The schedule showed Elena Park was assigned to close, but did not confirm she worked. The court also found no proof that another worker covered the shift.
Read the original in-game verdictThe decision
Portland small claims court denied Elena Park’s request for $80 in unpaid wages from Lantern Cup LLC, finding that she had not proven she worked a scheduled four-hour closing shift.
Park said she worked from 4 to 8 p.m. on May 14 but forgot to clock in. The café disputed that she worked and suggested another worker may have covered the shift. The court entered judgment for Lantern Cup and ordered no payment.
The court's reasons
The closing schedule supported Park’s account that she was assigned the shift, but it did not record attendance, hours completed or payment. Although the schedule was presented three times, the copies were not independent corroboration.
The court considered Park’s direct account that she worked and forgot to clock in. It did not disregard her account simply because it lacked a supporting document, but found that the evidence as a whole left the essential question of attendance uncertain.
Because Park sought payment, she bore the burden of establishing that she earned the wages. The calculation of four hours at $20 an hour was clear, the judgment said, but depended on the unproven premise that she worked those hours.
The judge also rejected any inference that the café had established its alternative explanation. No account or record identified a worker who covered the shift, and a missing clock-in alone would not prove Park was absent.
The parties' submissions
Park argued that the schedule and her own account should be considered together. She acknowledged that the schedule showed an assignment rather than completion of the shift, and that she had no independent record or witness confirming her attendance.
Lantern Cup argued that Park’s failure to clock in was not the company’s fault and that its records showed no time entry or payment for her. It maintained that the $80 was not earned and asked the court to deny the claim.
The background
The dispute concerned a single May 14 closing shift at the café. The judgment distinguished the presented schedule from the parties’ accounts: no separate time or payroll document was presented to support Lantern Cup’s description of its records.
The decision resolves the wage claim on the evidence before the court. It does not establish that Park was absent or that another worker covered the shift.