Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Mercer seeks $120 in unpaid wages from Larch Button Supply LLC. She says she worked two additional hours on each of three evenings during her final week. The company agrees that Elena received $480 for 24 hours at $20 per hour, but disputes that she worked the additional six hours. The company asks that the wage request be denied and confirms that Elena seeks no additional penalties. 2. The hearing record includes Elena’s handwritten time sheet, the final pay statement, and the parties’ submissions. The time sheet is a presented exhibit, not a missing document. The record does not include the manager’s alleged text itself, a manager’s signature approving the entries, or independent testimony confirming the hours. The company says it has no separate record or witness that resolves the dispute. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elena proved that she worked six additional hours and, if so, whether $120 remains unpaid. Under Rule 1, Elena, as the party seeking relief, must support her claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 directs the court to weigh the reliability of records against unsupported accounts. Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 6 limits relief to the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena’s side says she worked late during a busy holiday period and had inventory work to complete. It relies on a dated sheet listing two additional closing hours on each of three evenings. The submission says Elena entered each line that evening and that the manager had told her to write down extra time, but did not sign the sheet. Elena’s final submission says only that she has proof; it adds no new detail or evidence. 5. The company accepts that the pay statement shows $480 paid for 24 hours at $20 per hour. It argues that the sheet is Elena’s own unsigned record and does not independently confirm that the work occurred. The company does not contend that the pay statement proves no extra work occurred; it says the statement leaves that question unresolved. It also says it has no separate company record or witness either way. Evidence and findings 6. The final pay statement is strong evidence that Elena received $480 for 24 hours and that no payment for the disputed six hours appears on that statement. Both parties agree the payment was received. The statement does not establish the total hours Elena worked, so it neither proves nor disproves the claimed extra work. (Exhibits 2-e2 and 8-e2; statements 2 and 8.) 7. The handwritten sheet is readable and specific: it lists two additional hours on each of three evenings in Elena’s final week. Elena’s account is that she entered each line that evening. Those details give the sheet evidentiary weight. But it was prepared by Elena, has no manager approval, and is not corroborated by a witness or another record. The alleged manager text is described in a submission but was not presented as an exhibit. The court therefore cannot assess its wording or use it as independent confirmation. (Exhibits 3-e1 and 8-e1; statements 1, 3, 5, and 7.) 8. The company’s lack of a separate record does not establish that Elena did not work the hours. Equally, it does not prove that she did. The record leaves the central factual question to be decided on Elena’s sheet and account, weighed against their lack of independent confirmation. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Elena has provided more than a broad allegation: her sheet identifies three evenings and two additional hours on each. Her account that holiday-season closing and inventory work kept her late is consistent with the kind of work described in the entries. The court has considered that evidence rather than treating the sheet as absent or irrelevant. 10. However, Rule 1 places the burden on Elena to support the hours for which she seeks wages. Rule 2 gives weight to reliable records, but this sheet is not an employer-approved time record; it is Elena’s own unsigned account. The record contains no independent confirmation of the entries, and the alleged text is not available for assessment. The company’s inability to confirm or challenge the hours does not transfer Elena’s burden to the company. Considering the evidence as a whole, the court finds the six additional hours not proven. This finding is not a finding that Elena did not work them; it reflects that the available evidence does not establish them sufficiently for an award. 11. On the second issue, the arithmetic is straightforward: six hours at the agreed rate of $20 per hour would equal $120. The pay statement contains no payment for those hours. But Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of wages earned as well as wages paid. Because Elena has not proven the additional hours, the record does not establish that the $120 was earned and remains unpaid. Rule 6 also prevents an award beyond the harm proven. No penalties or other relief are requested, and none is awarded. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Larch Button Supply LLC. Elena Mercer’s claim for $120 in additional wages is denied. Larch Button Supply LLC owes Elena Mercer no additional amount under this judgment. This order decides only the claim and evidence presented in this hearing; it does not find that the disputed work did not occur, only that the claim was not proven on this record.