Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bell brings a wage claim against Cedar Finch Gifts LLC for $80, which she says is payment for working a four-hour shift from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. on April 12. Cedar Finch denies that Nora worked the shift and asks that the claim be denied. The record supplies no year for the date, and none is needed to decide the dispute. 2. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their positions and respond to the central evidentiary gap. Nora acknowledges that she has no separate record or witness confirming the shift and that the checklist initials are not verified. The record does not identify further obtainable proof. The court therefore decides the claim on the evidence presented. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Nora proved that she worked the April 12 shift and, if so, whether she proved that $80 in wages is owed for those hours. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Under Rule 25, a wage claim turns on what work was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Nora bears the burden of proving her claim. Submissions of the parties 4. Nora says Cedar Finch asked her to cover the shift, she accepted, worked the shift, and wrote her initials on the closing checklist. She argues that the missing time-clock entry does not prove she was absent and that the accepted shift and checklist support her account. She seeks $80 for four hours. 5. Cedar Finch argues that the time-clock report has no entry for Nora, the checklist has no completion time and unverified initials, and no witness or camera record confirms her presence. It also says the manager believes Nora canceled. Cedar Finch asks that the $80 claim be denied. The manager’s belief is not supported by a cancellation message or an explanation of its basis. Evidence and findings 6. The cover-request texts, presented as exhibits 3-e1 and 7-e1, show the manager asking Nora to cover 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. on April 12 and Nora replying, “Yes, I can.” They reliably establish that the shift was offered and accepted. They do not show whether Nora later attended or completed the shift. Nora herself recognizes that limit. 7. The time-clock report, exhibit 6-e2, contains no entry for Nora on April 12. It is a routine report and is relevant to attendance, but the record expressly recognizes that it cannot capture an unrecorded shift. The missing entry weighs against Nora’s claim but does not prove she was absent. 8. The April 12 closing checklist, exhibits 6-e3 and 7-e3, has “NB” beside closing tasks and no completion time. Its contemporaneous appearance gives it some relevance. But its author is unverified, it is untimed, and Nora says she cannot offer a separate record or witness confirming who wrote the initials or when. Nora’s account that she wrote them is evidence, but the checklist does not independently establish that she completed the shift. 9. Nora consistently says she worked the shift. Her account is relevant evidence, considered together with the accepted shift and checklist. However, she acknowledges that she has no separate confirmation. Cedar Finch’s manager, in turn, offers only an unsupported belief that Nora canceled. The court does not find that cancellation occurred: the record contains no cancellation message and no stated basis for the manager’s recollection. That weakness does not itself prove Nora worked. Reasons 10. On the first issue, Nora has shown that she accepted the shift and that the checklist bears initials matching her name. Those facts make her account plausible, but the question is whether the evidence establishes that she actually worked the four hours. The checklist has no verified author or completion time, and the time-clock report has no entry. Neither record is conclusive, but together with the absence of a witness or other confirmation they leave attendance uncertain. Nora’s own account supports her position, yet the record does not provide enough reliable confirmation to meet her burden under Rule 1 and Rule 2. The finding is not that Nora did not work; it is that she has not proven that she did. The issue is not proven. 11. Cedar Finch’s cancellation account does not change that result. Rule 2 favors reliable records over unsupported recollections, and the manager’s belief has no stated supporting basis. The court gives that assertion little weight and makes no finding that Nora canceled. But Nora, not Cedar Finch, bears the burden of proving the wage claim. Cedar Finch is not required to prove a different explanation for the missing time-clock entry. 12. On the second issue, Nora requests $80 for four hours. The amount depends on establishing that those hours were worked. Because attendance is not proven, the record does not establish that the wages were earned. There is also no separate pay or accounting record showing an unpaid balance. Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned and paid; on this record, the necessary foundation for an award is absent. The $80 claim is therefore not proven. This conclusion does not treat the missing pay record as proof that Cedar Finch paid Nora; it reflects that Nora has not established the work and unpaid wages underlying her request. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Cedar Finch Gifts LLC. Nora Bell’s claim for $80 in wages is denied. No payment is ordered from Cedar Finch to Nora. The court does not find that Nora canceled the shift or that the manager’s belief is correct; it finds only that Nora has not proven, on the available record, that she worked the shift and earned the claimed wages. No other relief is awarded.