Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nina Calder seeks $160 from Cedar Finch Market LLC for wages she says were owed for work on May 10. Cedar Finch disputes that Nina worked the full eight-hour shift and asks the court not to award an amount unsupported by proof of hours. The record does not show a different amount Cedar Finch concedes is owed. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to make final statements. Nina’s final submission says that her final pay statement lists a $20 hourly rate and no May 10 hours. The pay statement itself is not included in the record. Cedar Finch’s final statement says it has no further records establishing the hours either way. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Nina proved how many hours she worked on May 10, and whether she proved an amount of unpaid wages. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 6 requires a remedy tied to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Nina’s opening account says she worked that Saturday, that the clock was not working, and that her paycheck left out the shift. Her final submission points to the coworker’s message and asserts that the pay statement lists a $20 rate but no May 10 hours. The requested amount is $160, which corresponds to eight hours at $20 per hour. Nina’s relayed account also acknowledges that she did not write down her hours at the time and that her later recollection is a risk. 5. Cedar Finch accepts that Nina may have been at the market and disputes the full eight-hour shift, not necessarily her presence. It relies on a time-clock report with no entry and the coworker’s message, which says, “Thanks for helping stock this morning.” Cedar Finch acknowledges that the clock report does not prove Nina was absent and that the message does not show when she left. It says it has no schedule or message establishing her hours and asks that any award be limited to hours supported by evidence. Evidence and findings 6. The coworker’s dated message is presented by both sides in the record. Its wording supports the finding that Nina helped stock the market that morning. The message appears to come from someone who saw her, but it does not state when she arrived, when she left, or how long she worked. Its repeated presentation does not add independent detail. 7. The time-clock report is also presented and shows no entry for Nina on May 10. It is relevant to whether time was recorded, but Nina says the clock was not working when she arrived. Her explanation is a relayed client account, not independent proof that the clock failed. In any event, the missing entry does not establish that she was absent, and it does not establish the hours she worked. 8. Nina’s account that she worked the shift and that her pay omitted it is relevant, but it is relayed through counsel and is not admitted witness testimony or a produced payroll document. The account itself recognizes uncertainty in her later recollection. Nina’s final submission asserts that the pay statement lists a $20 rate and no May 10 hours, but the statement is not presented for the court to inspect. Cedar Finch’s statements are arguments and explanations, not proof that Nina worked no hours or was paid. Cedar Finch expressly acknowledges that its records do not establish either proposition. Reasons 9. On the hours issue, the court finds that Nina helped stock the market on the morning of May 10. That finding rests on the dated coworker message, which is specific and consistent across the record. But the message proves only morning assistance. It does not support the claimed eight-hour shift or any other definite duration. The clock report does not fill that gap. Nina’s relayed account is not sufficiently precise or independently supported to establish the shift length, particularly given her acknowledgment that she recorded no hours at the time and that her later recollection is uncertain. 10. Rule 1 places the burden of proving the requested relief on Nina. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague recollection, while recognizing that the clock report here is limited: it records no entry but does not prove absence. The court does not treat Cedar Finch’s lack of a schedule or message as proof against Nina. Rather, the evidence available from either side leaves the duration unknown. Because Nina bears the burden, the hours issue is not proven beyond the finding that she helped stock that morning. 11. On the amount issue, Nina has not established that $160 is owed. That figure depends on eight hours at $20 per hour. The record does not establish eight hours, and the pay statement described in Nina’s submission is not available to verify the rate or the omission. Nor does the record establish any payment or provide a calculation of unpaid wages based on proven hours. Rule 25 requires a clear accounting; the evidence does not provide one. Rule 6 does not permit an award based on an assumed shift length or an unsupported calculation. 12. Cedar Finch’s request to limit any award to supported hours is consistent with the evidentiary gap, but Cedar Finch has not proved that Nina was absent or that no wages were owed. The result is not a finding that Nina did no work. It is a finding that the record proves some morning assistance but does not prove a compensable duration or a definite unpaid amount. The court therefore cannot award a smaller wage amount without inventing hours or a rate not established by the evidence. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Cedar Finch Market LLC. Nina Calder’s request for $160 in wages is denied because the hours worked and the amount owed were not proven on this record. No payment is ordered. This judgment does not find that Nina was absent on May 10; it reflects only that the evidence establishes morning stocking help but not the duration or amount needed for a wage award.