Madison small claims court denies $120 wage claim for three disputed store closings

The small claims court in Madison denied Elena Mercer’s request for $120 in unpaid wages from Larch Button Supply LLC, finding insufficient evidence that she worked six additional closing hours during her final week. Judgment was entered for the company, with no additional payment awarded.

The dispute concerned three evenings on which Mercer said she stayed two hours late to finish closing work. Her handwritten record supported that account, but lacked manager approval or independent confirmation. The court distinguished a failure to prove the hours from a finding that she had not worked them.

The court gave the time sheet evidentiary weight because it was readable and specific, listing two additional hours on each of three evenings. Mercer’s account was that she made each entry that evening. Her explanation that holiday-season closing and inventory duties kept her late was consistent with the work described.

But the sheet remained her own unsigned account. No witness or other record corroborated the entries. Although her side described a manager’s message directing her to write down extra time, the message itself was not presented as an exhibit, leaving the court unable to assess its wording.

The final pay statement established that Mercer received $480 for 24 hours at the agreed $20 hourly rate. It showed no payment for the disputed hours, but did not establish how many hours she actually worked. Likewise, the company’s lack of separate records neither disproved her account nor supplied the missing confirmation.

The court placed the burden of supporting the claimed hours on Mercer. Because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that those hours were worked, the straightforward calculation—six hours at $20—could not establish an unpaid debt.

Mercer’s side argued that a busy holiday period and inventory work required longer shifts. It relied on the dated time sheet and said the manager had instructed her to record extra hours but had not signed the entries.

Larch Button Supply accepted the amount already paid but disputed whether the additional six hours were worked. It asked the court not to treat Mercer’s unsigned entries alone as sufficient proof of the full claim.

The company acknowledged that it had no separate record or witness resolving the dispute. It also expressly declined to treat the pay statement as proof that no extra work occurred.

Mercer sought only the allegedly missing wages, without penalties. Both sides agreed that she had received payment for 24 hours; the contested issue was whether her final week included six more.

The judgment resolves only the claim and evidence presented at the hearing. It does not establish that unsigned time sheets can never support a wage claim, or that the disputed closing work did not occur. Here, the court found the available record insufficient for an award.