Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Mercer seeks $120 in unpaid wages from Pinefold Paper Goods LLC for work she says she performed on April 12. She bases that amount on six hours at an agreed rate of $20 per hour. Pinefold disputes that she worked six hours and asks the court to deny the claim or limit any award to hours supported by the evidence. 2. The court considers the complete hearing record, including the original closing-time text exchange, the signed wage sheet, the parties’ submissions, and Leah’s saved account relayed by counsel. The court does not treat a party’s assertion as proof merely because it appears in a submission. The proposed phone-location evidence was mentioned, but no location record was submitted for the court to assess. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leah proved that she worked six hours on April 12. Leah bears the burden of supporting her wage claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. The applicable supplied rules are Rule 1, the claim needs proof; Rule 2, reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections; and Rule 25, pay claims need clear accounting of what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. 4. The second issue is the hourly rate for any work proved. The signed wage sheet lists $20 per hour, and neither party disputes that rate. The rate is established, but it does not by itself establish that Leah worked a particular shift or how many hours she worked. Submissions of the parties 5. Leah’s submissions rely on messages about packed orders and locking up, and her saved account says she was not paid for six hours. She later said she had no solid proof, then stated that phone-location information should show her at the shop for six hours. No such location information was submitted. Her final position does not add a record establishing the start time or duration. 6. Pinefold argues that the messages show a closing task, not a noon start or six hours of work. It refers to a payroll entry marking the shift canceled and showing no hours, but acknowledges that the entry was not produced and cannot independently establish when Leah left. Pinefold asks the court to deny the full $120 or limit any award to hours supported by the record. Evidence and findings 7. The original phone conversation shows a message at 5:46 p.m. from a number Leah identifies as Owen’s, asking her to put packed orders behind the counter before locking up. Leah replied at 6:03 p.m., “Done. Locked up now.” The original conversation and timestamps make the exchange meaningful evidence of a closing task. The sender’s identity and the exchange’s meaning were open to challenge, but the record contains no specific challenge that displaces the evidence that Leah handled the task. The exchange contains no start time and does not establish the total time worked. 8. The signed wage sheet lists Leah’s rate as $20 per hour. It is strong evidence of the agreed rate, and the parties do not dispute it. It records no individual shifts and therefore does not prove hours worked on April 12. 9. Leah’s saved account is an attributed account relayed by counsel, not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. It asserts that she was unpaid for six hours, but the record supplies no start time, time record, schedule, or other independent support for that duration. Leah’s later statement that there was no solid proof is consistent with the absence of corroborating hours evidence. Her mention of phone-location information does not establish what that information would show because the record itself was not submitted. 10. Pinefold’s payroll entry is also described rather than produced. The description supports Pinefold’s recollection that the shift was marked canceled, but its reliability and basis cannot be examined. It does not establish that Leah performed no work, particularly in light of the closing-time messages. The court gives the description limited weight and does not find that the shift was canceled or that no work occurred. Reasons 11. The closing-time messages establish that Leah handled a task connected to Pinefold’s packed orders and reported locking up. They do not establish when she began, whether she worked continuously, or how many hours she worked. The court therefore distinguishes the proven closing task from the unproven six-hour calculation. The fact that some work is supported does not permit the court to select an unsupported number of hours. 12. Leah bears the burden of proving the hours underlying her request. Her saved account is relevant, but its weight is limited because it is not independently verified, and the record contains no supporting start time or duration. The proposed location information cannot fill that gap because it was not submitted. Under Rules 1, 2, and 25, the evidence does not provide a clear accounting of the hours earned. The six-hour claim is not proven. 13. Pinefold’s argument succeeds as to the amount requested, but not as a claim that the record proves Leah did no work. The payroll description is not a produced record and does not establish that conclusion. Nevertheless, Leah’s burden is not met merely because Pinefold’s evidence is limited: she must provide sufficient support for the hours and amount she asks the court to award. The closing-time messages alone do not permit a reliable calculation of wages. 14. The $20 hourly rate is established. But without proven hours, the court cannot calculate an amount owed. Awarding $120 would assume the six hours that remain unproven; awarding a smaller amount would likewise require the court to invent a duration not established by the record. No wage payment can therefore be ordered on this evidence. Final order 15. The issue of the hourly rate is established at $20 per hour. The issue of whether Leah worked six hours on April 12 is not proven. Leah Mercer’s claim for $120 in unpaid wages is denied. Pinefold Paper Goods LLC is not ordered to pay Leah any amount on this record. This judgment does not find that Leah performed no work; it reflects that the hours and resulting wages were not sufficiently established to support a monetary award.