Small claims court in Madison denies wage claim over Saturday stock-count shift

The Small claims court in Madison denied Elena Brooks’s claim against Grant Ellis for $108 in unpaid Saturday wages, as well as her alternative request for $72. The court found that a four-hour paid assignment was established, but Brooks had not proved that payment for those hours remained outstanding.

The court also held that Brooks had not established the additional two hours underlying her full claim. No additional wages were awarded, and Ellis was not ordered to pay any amount under the judgment.

The decision distinguished proof of an assignment from proof of an unpaid balance. Although the parties agreed that Ellis had assigned a stock count from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at $18 an hour, that agreement did not resolve how the work was treated in the final paycheck.

The formal judgment identified two questions: whether Brooks proved the hours claimed and whether she proved that wages for established hours had been omitted from payment. Under the rules applied in the judgment, Brooks bore the burden of supporting her request with specific facts, records or testimony.

The court relied on the parties’ consistent descriptions of the scheduling message to find the four-hour paid assignment established. However, the message itself was not produced at the hearing. Nor did the hearing record include a paycheck, detailed payroll accounting, separate time record or testimony from another witness.

Brooks’s dated phone note was presented evidence and supported her account of working until 4 p.m. The court nevertheless found it insufficient to establish the extra two hours: it was her own record, differed from the described four-hour scheduled window and had no independent confirmation.

On payment, neither side produced records that allowed the court to check their competing accounts. Brooks said the final paycheck omitted Saturday work; Ellis said the payroll statement supported payment. The court found that Ellis’s assertion did not prove payment, but Brooks still had to prove an unpaid balance.

Applying Rule 25’s requirement for clear accounting of work earned and wages paid, and Rule 6’s limit of relief to proven loss, the court rejected both amounts sought. It also explained that the absence of a clock entry alone would not prove that Brooks had not worked, and it made no finding that she was dishonest.

Brooks sought six hours’ pay at $18 an hour, relying on the described scheduling message and her phone note. She said she counted and arranged stock during the assigned period and continued the count and related work until 4 p.m.

She acknowledged that the message approved only four hours and that no separate time record or witness confirmed the additional two. If the court did not accept all six hours, she asked for $72 for the four-hour assignment.

Ellis disputed the extra hours and challenged the note as a self-created record rather than independent corroboration. He maintained that the final payroll statement showed 26 hours and $468 in gross wages paid, but did not produce the statement or an accounting showing whether the Saturday hours were included.

The dispute arose after Ellis arranged a Saturday stock count and prepared Brooks’s final paycheck using the time-clock report. Brooks later claimed that six hours of Saturday work had gone unpaid.

Her phone note recorded a 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. stock-count shift and, according to her account, was written that evening. By the close of submissions, the parties stated that no additional obtainable proof was available.

The outcome turns on the limits of that hearing record. It establishes the four-hour assignment, but neither establishes an unpaid balance nor proves the extra two hours; it is not an affirmative finding that the assigned wages were paid.