Madison small claims court awards $72 in unpaid closing wages, denies investment-based interest

The small claims court in Madison awarded Nina Becker $72 in unpaid wages against Owen Keene for four hours of café-closing work. Becker sought that amount at her $18 hourly rate, together with an additional $3.60 in investment-based interest; the court denied the interest request.

The court entered judgment requiring Keene to pay Becker $72. It awarded no other monetary relief, finding that the wage claim was supported but the proposed investment return was not established as a loss.

The court assessed the timekeeping export, the closing-instructions text thread and the payroll calculation together. Becker bore the burden of supporting her claim with specific facts or reliable records, while the accounting inquiry concerned what she had earned and what had been paid.

The timekeeping export recorded a 10 a.m. clock-in and a 10 p.m. clock-out. It contained no task log, so the court accepted Keene’s point that the entry alone did not establish continuous work throughout the twelve-hour period.

The text exchange supplied additional support. Keene assigned stock-counting and spill-cleanup tasks at 5:52 p.m. Becker reported completing them at 9:54 p.m. and said she was locking up. Keene acknowledged the completion report.

Although the messages did not document every minute of activity or specify how long the tasks should take, the court found that the late assignment, completion report, recorded clock-out and Keene’s acknowledgment together established the four unpaid hours.

By contrast, Keene’s payroll record showed only why he had paid through the scheduled 6 p.m. finish. His adjustment rested on a presumed missed clock-out, not an observed departure. He identified no firsthand account or separate record showing that Becker had stopped work earlier. Repeated copies of the payroll record were not treated as independent corroboration.

The court separately rejected the $3.60 claim. Becker’s calculation assumed a 10% annual investment return over six months, but the record established neither an agreed interest rate nor a guaranteed return or actual loss. Explaining the arithmetic did not prove entitlement to that amount.

Becker maintained that she worked the full shift and received payment for only eight hours. She relied on the timekeeping export and text messages to show that Keene requested closing work shortly before 6 p.m. and that she completed it shortly before 10 p.m.

For the additional $3.60, Becker argued that she had been without the unpaid wages for about six months and could have earned an investment return during that period.

Keene initially sought denial or reduction of the wage claim because the clock entry did not prove every hour worked. After the text thread was presented, he acknowledged that it supported Becker’s account and that his payroll note did not prove an earlier departure. He opposed the additional amount as a hypothetical investment return rather than a documented loss.

The dispute arose from Becker’s final shift at Keene’s Madison café. The payroll record listed eight hours at $18 per hour, and neither party disputed receipt of that payment. Becker challenged the four-hour difference between the paid hours and the twelve hours shown in the timekeeping record.

Both parties made final submissions before the record closed. The judgment resolves the wage shortfall on the combined documentary evidence; it does not treat a clock entry as conclusive proof of continuous work or a possible investment return as an established loss.