Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Mercer seeks $120 in wages from Graham Bellamy for six hours of Saturday work at $20 per hour. She asks for wages only and expressly seeks no additional penalty. Graham agrees that Elena worked the six hours after he called her back and states that he or his client is willing or intends to pay the $120. 2. The record includes Elena’s and Graham’s submissions and two presented copies of a final pay statement. The statement lists 24 hours at $20 per hour and $480 gross pay. Both parties say that Saturday was not included. No separate time record or proof of a later payment is in the record. The court decides the claim on this record and does not treat either party’s assertion as proof beyond what the parties agree on or the document supports. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elena worked six Saturday hours for which $120 was earned and omitted from the listed pay, and whether she proved that the $120 remains unpaid. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned and paid. Rule 6 requires a remedy matched to the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena says Graham first canceled her Saturday shift, then texted her to return when new orders arrived. She says she worked from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at her usual $20 hourly rate. She acknowledges that the hours were not entered on the clock record, but argues that the later request and her work establish the wages earned. She relies on the pay statement’s 24 hours and $480, which exclude Saturday, and asks for $120, with any payment already made credited against that amount. 5. Graham agrees Elena worked six hours after he called her back and agrees on the $20 hourly rate. His submissions say he is willing to pay, that his client will pay, and that she has not said when she will pay. He does not state that payment has actually been made or provide a payment record. Elena responds that willingness or intent is not confirmation of payment. Evidence and findings 6. The parties’ submissions agree on the essential facts of the work: Elena worked six hours after Graham called her back, at $20 per hour. The court therefore finds that she earned $120. The pay statement, exhibit-3-e1, lists 24 hours and $480. Exhibit-9-e1 is another presented copy with the same stated contents. The parties agree Saturday was excluded. These exhibits support the accounting of the listed pay, but do not independently prove the Saturday work; that fact is established by the parties’ agreement. 7. The exhibits are relevant to what the final pay statement recorded. Their contents are consistent with each other and with the parties’ accounts, and neither party disputes that Saturday was omitted from the listed pay. The statement does not show whether a separate payment was made later. Nor does the record contain a receipt, transfer record, or other confirmation of later payment or continued nonpayment. 8. Graham’s statements about willingness or intention to pay are relevant as his account, but they do not establish that payment occurred. Elena’s statements that the record does not confirm payment accurately identify the evidentiary gap; they do not themselves prove nonpayment. The court distinguishes the established fact that the listed pay omitted Saturday from the unresolved question whether the $120 was later paid. Reasons 9. The first issue is established. The parties agree Elena worked six hours at $20 per hour, making $120 in wages. The pay statement lists only 24 hours and $480, and both parties agree it excludes Saturday. The absence of a clock entry does not overcome Graham’s agreement that the work occurred. Under Rule 25, the accounting supports that the $120 was earned and omitted from the listed pay. 10. The second issue is not proven. Elena seeks an order for wages still owed, so she must support the amount remaining unpaid. The pay statement establishes what was included in that pay, not whether a later payment occurred. Graham’s promise or intention to pay is not proof of payment, but the absence of proof from Graham does not shift Elena’s burden or establish nonpayment. The record leaves payment status uncertain. Because Elena has not proved that the $120 remains unpaid, the court cannot order payment on this record. 11. This result does not find that Graham paid the wages. It reflects only that the evidence does not establish whether payment occurred, and that the burden to prove the amount still owed rests with Elena. Her request for a credit for any payment actually made does not resolve the gap: there is no evidence of a payment to credit, and no evidence establishing that none was made. Rule 6 supports limiting relief to a proven loss; it does not permit an award where the amount still owed has not been established. 12. The court has considered the parties’ final statements and the complete record. The remaining uncertainty concerns a fact neither side has documented, and the record provides no basis to delay judgment in the hope of obtaining further proof. No additional penalty or other remedy is requested or supported. Final order 13. The court finds that Elena earned $120 for six hours of Saturday work and that those hours were omitted from the final pay statement. However, Elena has not proved that the $120 remains unpaid. Her request for a $120 wage payment is therefore denied. No payment is ordered from Graham to Elena, and no additional penalty or other relief is awarded.