Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Brenner seeks $160 from Martin Voss for an alleged eight-hour Saturday shift at $20 per hour. The parties do not dispute the weekday hours or the weekday wages shown on the payroll sheet. The wage deposit confirmation shows no additional $160 payment, and Martin agrees it was the entire payment for that week. 2. The record includes a complete displayed message thread, a weekly payroll sheet, and the deposit confirmation. The thread first shows Martin saying the Saturday shift was canceled. On Saturday at 8:42 a.m., Martin then asked Leah to come in at nine to pack an order. Leah agreed and later, at 5:06 p.m., reported that she had finished the order and locked up. The thread does not show a reply from Martin. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Leah performed Saturday work and whether she proved that she worked eight hours, earning $160 that remained unpaid. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the claim with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 6 requires that any remedy match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Leah asks for $160 for an eight-hour shift. Her submissions rely on the messages and say that the paper time sheet does not defeat her claim. They do not provide a separate time record or explain the actual start time, finish time, or breaks. 5. Martin agrees that he later asked Leah to come in and that she agreed. He also acknowledges that she reported finishing the order. He argues that neither the messages nor the payroll sheet verifies eight hours. In his final statement, Martin says he has no firsthand information or separate record showing how long Leah worked. He asks that any payment be limited to hours the evidence establishes. Evidence and findings 6. The message thread is a presented exhibit with timestamps and displays the complete conversation. Its contents are persuasive evidence that Martin authorized Saturday work after the earlier cancellation and that Leah reported completing the order. The payroll sheet records no Saturday hours and bears Martin's handwritten note, “Canceled.” That record supports the earlier cancellation and the absence of recorded hours, but it does not account for Martin's later instruction. Martin's concession further supports authorization. I find that Leah performed Saturday work. 7. The thread does not establish the actual hours worked. Martin's request was for Leah to come in at nine, but the record does not show that she arrived at nine. Her 5:06 p.m. message reports completion; it is relevant evidence of the work and its timing, but it is Leah's own report and does not independently establish continuous work throughout that interval or account for breaks. The payroll sheet contains no Saturday hours. The deposit confirmation proves that no additional $160 was paid, but it does not prove that $160 was earned. Reasons 8. On the first issue, Leah has met her burden. The later instruction and her agreement are direct evidence of authorization. Her completion message supports that she carried out the assignment. The payroll sheet's canceled notation is not inconsistent with the later instruction because it records the earlier cancellation, not the subsequent change. Martin does not dispute authorization or the reported completion. The issue of whether Saturday work was performed is established under Rule 1 and the reliable-records principle in Rule 2. 9. On the second issue, Leah has not met her burden to prove the specific eight-hour amount. The messages establish a request to arrive at nine and a completion report at 5:06 p.m., but elapsed time between those messages is not proof of hours actually worked. The record does not establish Leah's actual arrival, any time away from work, or the number of hours she spent on the order. The completion report deserves weight as a contemporaneous account, but it does not by itself establish the precise total claimed. 10. Martin's payroll sheet does not prove that no work occurred, and I do not accept it for that purpose. But the fact that Martin cannot provide a separate time record or firsthand account does not shift Leah's burden to prove the amount she seeks. The deposit confirms nonpayment of an additional $160, not the amount of wages earned. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned and paid. The record supports some Saturday work but does not provide a reliable basis to calculate a particular number of hours or a smaller award. Rule 6 does not permit an award based on speculation about the amount. 11. Leah's claim is therefore not proven as to the requested $160. This conclusion does not find that she performed no work or that she was paid for Saturday work. It reflects the limit of the available proof on the amount. The parties have made their final statements, and no further obtainable proof has been identified. No adjournment is warranted. Final order 12. The court finds that Leah performed Saturday work at Martin's request, but Leah has not proven that she worked eight hours or earned the claimed $160. Judgment is entered for Martin on Leah's $160 wage claim. The claim is denied, and no payment is ordered. This judgment does not disturb the undisputed weekday wages.