Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Erin Bell seeks $120 in unpaid wages from Owen Mercer. She says she covered a six-hour shift on April 9, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., at $20 per hour. She says she sent Owen a message at 8:04 p.m. reporting that she had closed the shop, balanced the till, and locked the back door, and that Owen replied, “Thanks for covering.” Erin acknowledges that she did not clock in. 2. The April pay statement lists 18 paid hours at $20 per hour and no hours for April 9. The parties agree that the hours listed on the statement were paid. The statement is presented three times in the record, but each entry describes the same pay statement and is not separate proof of the shift. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Erin has proven that she worked the April 9 shift and, if so, whether she has proven unpaid wages and the amount owed. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than unsupported accounts. Rule 25 directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 6 requires a remedy tied to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Erin argues that her closing report and Owen’s reply support her account, and that the pay statement shows no April 9 hours or payment. She seeks $120 for six hours at $20 per hour. She does not claim 18 unpaid hours; Owen’s reference to an 18-hour claim does not match Erin’s stated request. 5. Owen disputes that Erin was present and says he could not verify her presence because he was not at the shop. He also accuses her of making up the claim. In his final submission, however, Owen says the evidence supports that a message thread records Erin’s closing report and his reply, while also maintaining that he could not personally verify her presence. No message thread itself was presented. Evidence and findings 6. Erin’s repeated descriptions of the date, time, closing tasks, and reply are consistent. They are submissions describing what she says happened, not a produced message record or admitted witness testimony. Owen’s final submission refers to a message thread, but does not supply it. The record therefore does not permit direct examination of the messages’ wording, context, or authenticity. I give Erin’s consistent account some weight, but less than a presented, verifiable message record would carry. 7. The pay statement is a presented payment record. It establishes that 18 hours were paid at $20 per hour and that no April 9 hours appear in its daily breakdown. It does not establish whether Erin attended or worked that day. Its absence of an April 9 entry supports the proposition that the statement records no April 9 pay; it supports a wage claim only if the work is first established. 8. Erin acknowledges that she did not clock in. No clock-in record, schedule, or other independent attendance record is presented. Owen provides no evidence that Erin was absent. His accusation of fabrication is an allegation, not proof, and I make no finding that Erin acted dishonestly. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Erin bears the burden of proving that she worked the shift. Her consistent account, including the reported reply, is meaningful support. Owen’s inability to verify her presence does not disprove her account, and his unsupported accusation does not fill that evidentiary gap. But the central message exchange is described rather than produced, and there is no attendance record or other independent evidence. Considering the record as a whole, Erin has not established the shift sufficiently to support a wage award. The issue of whether she worked April 9 is therefore not proven, not because Owen proved she was absent, but because Erin bears the burden and the available evidence does not meet it. 10. On the second issue, Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned and paid. The pay statement shows the listed 18 hours were paid and no April 9 hours were recorded. It does not establish that additional wages were earned. If the six-hour shift had been proven, six hours at $20 would equal the requested $120. The arithmetic is clear, and the request is limited to that shift. But a correct calculation cannot substitute for proof that the work occurred. Because the underlying shift is not proven, Erin has not established that any April 9 wages are owed. The wage claim and requested remedy are denied. 11. This decision does not accept Owen’s claim that Erin fabricated the shift. It resolves the claim on the burden of proof and the limits of the evidence presented. No further proof is identified as obtainable in this closed hearing, and no adjournment is available. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Owen Mercer on Erin Bell’s claim for $120 in unpaid wages. Erin’s claim is denied, and no payment is ordered. The finding is limited to the record presented: the pay statement shows no April 9 hours recorded, but Erin has not proven that she worked the claimed shift. No finding is made that Erin fabricated her account.