Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Benton seeks $120 in unpaid wages for a six-hour shift at Copper Finch Café LLC on April 17, 2026, calculated at $20 per hour. She also requested attorneys’ fees, asserting that the café lacked oversight. The café disputes that the record proves Leah completed the shift, but it does not claim that the payroll export proves she was absent. The parties have both made their final statements, and the record is closed for decision. Issues for determination 2. The first issue is whether Leah proved that she worked the claimed six hours and was not paid. Leah bears the burden of supporting her request with facts or records. The supplied wage rule, Rule 25, directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. The second issue is whether the record supports an award of attorneys’ fees. Leah bears the burden on that request as well. Submissions of the parties 3. Leah’s position is that she was scheduled from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., could not clock in because the tablet failed, notified manager Owen, and was told to keep working while he would fix the hours. She says she worked through 8 p.m. and received no pay for the shift. Her final request is $120 for six hours. Her submissions also refer to the schedule and text exchange, and she acknowledges that she did not submit a correction form. 4. The café argues that a schedule establishes expected work, not attendance for the full shift, and that the text exchange records an instruction rather than proof of completion. It relies on the payroll export’s zero-hour entry but fairly concedes that the export does not say Leah was absent. The café says it has no further independent evidence and asks that the wage request be treated as unconfirmed. It also opposes attorneys’ fees as unsupported. Evidence and findings 5. The posted schedule lists Leah for the April 17 shift from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. (exhibit-3-e1). It is evidence of the assigned hours, not by itself proof that she attended or completed them. 6. The saved text exchange records Leah’s message to Owen at 2:06 p.m., “Here for closing, tablet won't clock me in,” and Owen’s reply at 2:09 p.m., “Keep working till 8 as scheduled. I'll fix the hours.” (exhibit-3-e3). The exchange supports that Leah reported a clock-in problem at the start of the shift and that Owen instructed her to continue working until 8. It does not directly record her presence at the end of the shift. The record describes this as a saved exchange on Leah’s phone; no separate authentication challenge or contrary account is presented. I give it weight for what it says, while recognizing its limits. 7. Leah’s saved client accounts state that she worked from 2 to 8 and was not paid (exhibit-3-client-statement:13; exhibit-5-client-statement:59; exhibit-7-client-statement:3). These are accounts relayed through counsel, not produced documents or admitted witness testimony, so they are not independent verification. They are nevertheless specific and consistent on the central point. The café’s final submission does not provide a competing account of what happened after the instruction to continue working. 8. The payroll export lists Leah’s rate as $20 per hour and zero hours on April 17, with no separate absence notation (exhibit-2-e2). It supports the rate and that no hours were recorded in that export. It does not establish why no hours were recorded or whether Leah worked. The café’s submissions likewise acknowledge that limitation. Leah’s failure to submit a correction form is relevant context, but the record does not establish that such a form was required or that its absence proves she did not work. Reasons 9. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 gives weight to reliable records over vague recollections, while Rule 25 focuses on what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. These rules require weighing the whole record; they do not make a schedule conclusive, nor do they make an ambiguous payroll entry conclusive. 10. The café’s strongest point is that no independent evidence confirms Leah remained at work until 8 p.m. The text exchange proves an instruction to work until that time, not that Leah followed it. That limitation is real. But the question is whether Leah has shown the shift was worked on the available record, not whether she produced a particular kind of proof. Her account is specific and consistent. It is corroborated by a schedule for the exact shift, a contemporaneous message saying she was there and could not clock in, and the manager’s response directing her to continue until 8 and promising to fix the hours. The café offers no evidence that she left early or was absent. 11. The payroll export does not outweigh that evidence. It records zero hours, but contains no absence notation and does not explain the entry. In the context of the reported clock-in failure and Owen’s promise to fix the hours, the zero entry is consistent with an uncorrected recording problem as well as with no work. It therefore cannot resolve the dispute against Leah. Considering the corroborating records and Leah’s account together, I find it more likely than not that she worked the six-hour shift and was not paid for it. The wage claim is established. 12. The calculation is supported: six hours at the $20 hourly rate shown in the payroll export equals $120. No evidence supports a different rate, a partial shift, or payment for these hours. The café’s request to deny the wage claim is therefore rejected. 13. The attorneys’ fee request is different. The record contains only Leah’s assertion that the café lacked oversight. It does not establish a basis for fees, their amount, or a supplied rule authorizing them. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm, and Rule 1 places the burden on the party seeking relief. The fee request is not proven and is denied. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Leah Benton on her unpaid-wage claim. Defendant Copper Finch Café LLC must pay Leah Benton $120 in United States dollars for the six hours worked on April 17, 2026. 15. Leah Benton’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied. No other monetary relief is awarded. This judgment resolves the claims supported by the supplied record and does not add interest, costs, or other relief.