Madison small claims court awards café worker $120 despite missing clock-in

The small claims court in Madison ordered Copper Finch Café LLC to pay Leah Benton $120 for a six-hour shift that never appeared in its recorded hours. Benton received the full unpaid wages she sought, but the court denied her separate request for attorneys’ fees.

The dispute turned on whether a missing clock-in meant missing work. Benton said the café’s tablet failed when she arrived and that she worked until 8 p.m. after being instructed to continue. The café maintained that the records did not independently establish completion of the shift.

The court found it more likely than not that Benton worked the shift and was not paid, weighing her account alongside the schedule and a contemporaneous text exchange. None of those sources alone conclusively established all six hours.

The schedule assigned Benton to work from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 17, 2026. At 2:06 p.m., she texted Owen to report that she was there but could not clock in. His reply three minutes later instructed her to keep working until 8 and promised to fix the hours. The court gave the exchange weight while acknowledging that it did not document her presence at closing.

Benton’s accounts, relayed through counsel, were not admitted witness testimony or independent verification. Nevertheless, the judge found them specific and consistent on completion of the shift. The café supplied no competing account of what happened after the instruction to continue working.

The payroll export confirmed a $20 hourly rate and zero recorded hours, but contained no absence notation. In light of the reported tablet failure, that entry could also reflect an uncorrected recording problem. Benton had submitted no correction form, but the record did not establish that one was required.

The fee request failed separately: the record established neither a basis for attorneys’ fees, their amount, nor a supplied rule authorizing them.

Benton’s representative argued that the schedule and texts supported her claim for six hours at $20 an hour. The request for attorneys’ fees rested on an assertion that the café lacked oversight.

The café drew a distinction between being scheduled, being told to work and actually completing the shift. It acknowledged that its payroll export did not prove absence, but argued that the $120 claim remained unconfirmed without independent evidence of completion. It also opposed the fee request as unsupported.

Benton was a café employee scheduled for the April 17 closing shift in Madison. She understood Owen to be the manager. She later left the job, although the record does not establish when.

The judgment resolves this claim by assessing the records together rather than treating either the schedule or payroll entry as decisive. It does not establish that an instruction to work alone proves a completed shift. No interest, costs or other monetary relief was awarded.