Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Mercer brings a claim against Copper Finch Café LLC for wages for an April 10, 2026 closing shift. She asks for $120, calculated as six hours at $20 per hour, and expressly seeks no additional penalties. 2. The parties agree that the café assigned Elena the shift from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. at $20 per hour and that she replied, “I’ll be there.” The dispute is whether she actually worked the shift and, if so, whether the café owes the requested wages. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Elena worked the assigned shift. Elena bears the burden of supporting that claim under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. 4. The second issue is whether $120 in wages is owed. Under Rule 25, Pay Claims Need Clear Accounting, the court considers what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. The amount depends on whether Elena worked the shift. Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, also supports limiting relief to the proven loss. Submissions of the parties 5. Elena says she worked from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m. She relies on her account, the shift assignment and her acceptance, and the payroll sheet showing no hours or wages. She acknowledges that the assignment does not itself prove attendance and that she has no separate witness or time record. She asks only for $120. 6. Copper Finch argues that no one saw Elena work and that the payroll sheet records zero hours. It says the assignment proves only that she was scheduled, not that she attended, and that Elena must prove her claim. Owen, who entered the zero-hours figure, believed Elena had left but cannot personally confirm that she did. Evidence and findings 7. The shift-assignment message is a presented exhibit. It identifies the date, six-hour shift, and $20 hourly rate, and records Elena’s reply that she would attend (exhibit-3-e1). It reliably establishes the scheduled shift and rate, but not attendance. 8. The final payroll sheet is also a presented exhibit. It records zero hours and no wages for April 10 (exhibit-2-e2). That is evidence that the café recorded no work or payment. Its weight on the separate question of attendance is limited: the record says Owen entered zero because he believed Elena had left, and the sheet has no clock-out time or employee confirmation. The sheet does not independently establish that Elena was absent. 9. Elena’s statements that she worked the full shift appear consistently in her submissions and final account (statement-5, statement-7, statement-9). These are her direct, attributed account, not a separate time record or independent witness. Her account is nevertheless specific as to the date, hours, and work claimed. She has not shifted her account and has candidly recognized the limits of the assignment message and the absence of corroboration. 10. Copper Finch’s submissions and the saved client accounts report Owen’s belief that Elena had left, while also acknowledging that he cannot confirm this personally and that no one is known to have seen whether she worked (statement-6; exhibit-2-client-statement:9; exhibit-2-client-statement:23). These accounts are attributed to the café through counsel, not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. They do not provide firsthand evidence of absence. Reasons 11. On the first issue, Elena bears the burden. Rule 1 requires specific supporting facts or testimony; it does not make a party’s account automatically conclusive. Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, gives weight to reliable records, but the payroll sheet’s clear entry proves what the café recorded, not necessarily what occurred during the shift. Its attendance basis is Owen’s unconfirmed belief, and it contains no recorded departure. 12. The assignment message supports Elena’s account by confirming that the café expected her to work those exact hours at the stated rate. It does not prove she attended. The decisive evidence is Elena’s consistent, direct account that she did work the shift, considered alongside the absence of firsthand evidence contradicting her. The lack of an independent witness or time record is a real limitation, but it does not erase her account. On the whole record, I find it more likely than not that Elena worked the assigned shift. The shift-worked issue is established. 13. Copper Finch is right that Elena carries the burden and that the assignment alone would not meet it. But the court does not treat the payroll entry as conclusive merely because it is written down. The café’s own explanation shows that the zero-hours entry reflects Owen’s belief rather than a recorded departure, and Owen cannot confirm that Elena left. The café’s argument that unrecorded hours necessarily mean no work assumes the accuracy of the very entry in dispute. That argument does not outweigh Elena’s direct account on this record. 14. On the second issue, the assignment establishes six hours at $20 per hour, a total of $120 (exhibit-3-e1). The payroll sheet records no wages for that date (exhibit-2-e2), and the café identifies no payment. Because Elena has established that she worked the shift, the evidence supports the requested amount as earned and unpaid. The wages-amount issue is established under Rule 25. 15. Elena requests no penalties or other relief. An award of $120 matches the supported wage loss and is proportionate under Rule 6. No additional remedy is warranted on the record presented. Final order 16. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Elena Mercer and against defendant Copper Finch Café LLC. Copper Finch Café LLC must pay Elena Mercer $120 in wages. 17. No additional penalties or other monetary relief are awarded. This judgment resolves only the wage claim presented for the April 10, 2026 shift.