Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bell brings a claim against Linden Parcel LLC for $160 in wages. She says she worked an April 6 shift from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., eight hours at $20 per hour, and was not paid. Linden Parcel disputes that the record proves she attended the shift. Both sides have had an opportunity to make final submissions. The record is closed, and no further obtainable evidence has been identified. 2. The court decides the claim on the supplied rules and the evidence in this hearing record. A party’s submission is an argument or allegation, not proof by itself. The plaintiff must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 1, “The Claim Needs Proof,” assigns that burden to the party seeking relief. Rule 25, “Pay Claims Need Clear Accounting,” requires attention to what work was earned, what was paid, and what remains unpaid. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Nora worked the April 6 shift, and, if so, whether the evidence establishes the hours she claims. Nora bears the burden on that issue under Rule 1. 4. The second issue is whether Linden Parcel owes wages and, if so, whether the amount is established. Nora bears the burden of showing that wages were earned and unpaid and of supporting the requested amount under Rule 25 and Rule 6, “The Remedy Should Match the Harm.” Submissions of the parties 5. Nora argues that the schedule lists her for the April 6 shift from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., that she says she worked it, and that the zero-hour payroll entry does not distinguish between missing work and a missed clock-in. She requests $160, calculated as eight hours at $20 per hour. In her final submission, Nora acknowledged that the schedule does not prove attendance or all eight hours, Witness 1’s testimony was uncertain, and no camera footage is available. She nevertheless asks the court to consider her account together with the schedule. 6. Linden Parcel’s submissions questioned whether Nora attended and raised company or worker camera footage as a possible way to check. The record contains no such footage. The defendant’s final submission did not provide evidence that Nora was absent or that she was paid. The defendant’s position is that the plaintiff’s evidence does not establish the claim. Evidence and findings 7. Exhibit 3, the Saturday schedule, lists Nora and Witness 1 for April 6 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The same schedule is presented again as exhibits 14, 16, and 18. These repeated presentations are the same evidence, not independent corroboration. The schedule is relevant and supports that Nora was assigned to the shift. It does not record attendance, hours actually worked, or payment. 8. Nora’s account, repeated in her submissions, supports her claim that she worked and was not paid. It is an attributed account, not a payroll record or independent attendance record. The court has considered it, but it must be weighed with the rest of the record and the plaintiff’s burden. 9. Witness 1’s admitted testimony is expressly described as uncertain about whether Nora worked the shift. It therefore does not provide a clear independent recollection confirming attendance or the full eight hours. The record also says camera footage is unavailable. The court does not treat that unavailable footage as evidence for either side. 10. The zero-hour payroll entry is discussed in submissions, including Nora’s explanation that it could reflect either absence or a missed clock-in. No payroll exhibit is presented. The court therefore cannot independently verify the entry or determine what it records. Even if the described entry is considered as part of the parties’ accounts, it does not resolve whether Nora worked or was paid. Reasons 11. On the first issue, the court finds that Nora was scheduled for the shift, but that she has not proven she worked it. The schedule is reliable evidence of assignment, not attendance. Nora’s account supports attendance, but the record offers no independent confirmation. Witness 1’s testimony is uncertain, and the camera footage is unavailable. Rule 2, “Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories,” favors records and clear observations when available; here, the schedule does not answer the attendance question. The court does not find that Nora was absent. Rather, the evidence leaves attendance uncertain, and the burden to resolve that uncertainty rests with Nora under Rule 1. The issue is not proven. 12. On the second issue, the court finds that Nora has not proven an entitlement to wages or the requested amount. The calculation of $160 is arithmetically clear if eight hours were worked at $20 per hour. But the underlying eight hours are not established. Nor does the record establish that wages for those hours were withheld. The described zero-hour entry is not a presented payroll exhibit and, in any event, does not show whether the shift was missed or worked without clocking in. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned, paid, and withheld. That accounting is not established here. Rule 6 also requires a remedy tied to proven harm; without proof of earned, unpaid hours, no wage award can be calculated on this record. 13. Linden Parcel has not proved that Nora was absent or paid. That does not shift the plaintiff’s burden or establish the claim. The result is based on the insufficiency of the evidence supporting Nora’s request, not on an affirmative finding that she did not work. The court has considered Nora’s account and the schedule, but the remaining uncertainty must be resolved against the party bearing the burden of proof. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for defendant Linden Parcel LLC. Nora Bell’s claim for $160 in unpaid wages is denied. No amount is awarded to Nora, and Linden Parcel owes no payment under this judgment. This order decides only the claim on the evidence available in this hearing record; it does not find as a fact that Nora missed the shift or that any wages were paid.