Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks seeks $96 in unpaid wages from Copper Finch Café LLC for a September 12 shift. She says she worked from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. at $16 per hour. She seeks no penalties or other relief. Copper Finch denies that the wages are owed and asks that the claim be denied; it seeks no countersuit. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to explain their positions and respond. Elena acknowledged that she has no further independent record or witness establishing the full shift. The record is closed, and no adjournment is available or warranted on this record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elena proved that she worked the September 12 shift, and whether she proved that Copper Finch owes her $96 for that work. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Under Rule 25, a wage dispute turns on what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Elena therefore bears the burden of proving the hours for which she seeks wages and the resulting amount. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena argues that the posted schedule shows a six-hour shift at $16 per hour, that she worked despite a clock problem, and that Copper Finch’s payroll report shows no payment for that date. She says the owner’s recollection does not establish that she left before working, because the owner left before closing and cannot say she saw Elena leave for good. Elena asks for $96, calculated as six hours at $16. 5. Copper Finch argues that its payroll and time-entry report has no entry for September 12, while showing payment for Elena’s other recorded shifts. It says employees were expected to track hours when the clock system had a problem and argues that there is no witness or time record placing Elena at work for the full shift. Copper Finch relies as well on the owner’s recollection that Elena said she was leaving and took her bag. Evidence and findings 6. The posted schedule is a presented exhibit. It lists Elena for September 12 from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. at $16 per hour. It supports that a shift was planned and that the claimed rate is $16. It does not show that Elena attended or worked all six hours. 7. The final payroll and time-entry report is also a presented exhibit. It shows payment for other recorded shifts at $16 per hour and a blank entry for September 12. It supports that Copper Finch did not record or pay a shift for that date. The report does not explain why the entry is blank and does not, by itself, prove Elena was absent. 8. Elena’s submissions state that she worked the shift and refer to same-day messages about a clock problem. The messages themselves are not in the record. Elena’s account supports her claim, but the described messages cannot be independently assessed for their contents, timing, or reliability. Elena expressly acknowledged that she has no further independent record or witness establishing continuous work for all six hours. 9. The owner’s account is relayed through a client statement, not presented as admitted witness testimony or an independently verified document. The owner recalls Elena saying she was leaving and taking her bag, but also says the owner left before closing, does not recall the relevant times, and cannot say that Elena left for good. This account gives some support to Copper Finch’s position but does not establish that Elena left before working the shift or that she was absent for all of it. Reasons 10. On the first issue, Elena has not proven that she worked the full six-hour shift. The schedule and her account make it plausible that she was expected and may have worked. The payroll report confirms that no time was recorded, but its blank entry is not proof of absence. The owner’s limited recollection likewise does not resolve what happened during the shift. However, the burden is Elena’s, and the evidence does not establish the hours worked with enough support to find that all six hours were worked. The described messages are not produced, and there is no independent record or witness confirming the full shift. Under Rule 1 and Rule 2, the schedule is reliable evidence of the planned shift, not of attendance; the competing accounts and unexplained blank entry leave the essential fact uncertain. The issue is therefore not proven. 11. On the second issue, the arithmetic of Elena’s request is clear: six hours at $16 per hour equals $96. But Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned and paid. The report establishes no recorded payment for September 12, not that six hours were earned. Because Elena has not proven the hours underlying her calculation, the record does not establish that Copper Finch owes $96. Rule 6 also supports limiting relief to proven harm; it does not permit an award based only on a planned shift. This issue is not proven. 12. Copper Finch’s argument that a blank entry alone proves Elena did not work is not accepted. Nor does the record establish that Elena failed to follow a particular clock-out procedure; the café’s submission describes a protocol, but no separate policy document or other proof of its terms is presented. Those limitations do not shift Elena’s burden or fill the evidentiary gap in her claim. The result rests on the failure to prove the hours and wages claimed, not on a finding that Elena was absent or that her account was false. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Copper Finch Café LLC on Elena Brooks’s wage claim. Elena’s request for $96 is denied, and no wages are awarded. Copper Finch sought no countersuit, and none is adjudicated. This judgment decides only the claim and evidence presented in this hearing.