Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks seeks $108 from Grant Ellis for six hours of Saturday stock-count work at $18 per hour. She alternatively asks for $72 for the four-hour assignment that Grant’s message is said to confirm. Grant disputes that Elena worked beyond the assigned four hours and says the final payroll statement supports payment of 26 hours and $468. 2. The hearing record includes the parties’ submissions and Elena’s presented phone note, which reads: “Saturday: stock count, 10–4, six hours.” The note is relevant evidence of Elena’s account, but it is her own record. The record does not include the scheduling message itself, a paycheck, a detailed payroll accounting, a separate time record, or testimony from another witness. The parties have had an opportunity to address the evidence and state that no additional obtainable proof is available. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elena proved the Saturday hours for which she seeks wages and whether she proved that wages for established hours were omitted from payment. Under Rule 1, Elena, as the party seeking relief, must support her claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 25 directs attention to what work was earned, what was paid, and whether the accounting is clear. Rule 2 favors reliable records over unsupported recollections, while recognizing that a record’s weight depends on its source and consistency. Rule 6 requires any remedy to match the proven loss. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena argues that Grant’s message confirms a paid assignment from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and that her dated note records work through 4 p.m. She says her final paycheck paid 26 hours and $468 but included no Saturday pay. She acknowledges that the note is her own record, that Grant’s message specifies only four hours, and that she has no separate time record or witness confirming the additional two hours. She asks for $108 if all six hours are found supported, or $72 for the four-hour assignment. 5. Grant argues that the evidence supports only the four hours he assigned and that Elena has not independently confirmed the extra two. He also asserts that the final payroll statement supports payment of 26 hours and $468. Grant’s assertion about the payroll statement is not accompanied by the statement or a detailed accounting. His accusation that Elena is dishonest is argument, not independent proof of what hours she worked or what wages were paid. Evidence and findings 6. The record supports a paid Saturday assignment from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Grant’s message is described by both sides as confirming that assignment at $18 per hour. The parties’ descriptions are consistent on this point. I find that the four-hour assignment is established. 7. Elena’s phone note is presented evidence, not missing evidence. It supports her account that she worked until 4 p.m. and was made that evening, according to her. But the note is self-created, and its six-hour entry conflicts with the four-hour scheduled window described in Grant’s message. Elena’s account also supports the note, but she confirms there is no separate record or witness for the extra two hours. On this record, the additional two hours are not established. 8. The record does not establish whether the four assigned hours were included in the final paycheck. Elena’s statement that the paycheck paid 26 hours and $468 and omitted Saturday work is an attributed account, not a produced pay record. Grant’s statement that the final payroll statement supports payment is likewise not accompanied by that statement. The scheduling message establishes an assignment, not the later payroll treatment. The evidence therefore does not show whether the four hours were paid or remain outstanding. Reasons 9. Elena has met her burden to establish that Grant assigned her four hours of paid Saturday work. That finding does not by itself establish that Grant failed to pay those wages. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned and paid. The competing accounts about the final paycheck cannot be checked against a pay stub or detailed accounting in this record. Because Elena bears the burden of proving an unpaid wage claim, the uncertainty on whether the four hours were paid must be resolved against her claim for additional wages. 10. Elena has not established the extra two hours. Her note and account provide some support, and the absence of a clock entry alone would not prove that she did not work. But the note is not independent confirmation, the message supports a four-hour assignment, and no other evidence confirms work after 2 p.m. The burden remains Elena’s. The evidence is insufficient to award wages for those additional hours. 11. Grant’s argument that the extra hours were not approved does not change the result. The decisive point is that the record does not sufficiently establish that the extra work occurred. Nor does Grant’s unsupported assertion about the payroll statement prove that the four hours were paid. Nevertheless, Elena bears the burden of proving that wages remain unpaid, and the record does not meet that burden. The court does not find that Elena was dishonest; it finds only that the evidence does not establish the claimed unpaid amount. 12. Elena’s alternative request for $72 is narrower and corresponds to the four-hour assignment at $18 per hour. But a correct calculation of the assigned hours cannot substitute for proof that the amount remains unpaid. Rule 6 permits relief only for a proven loss. Since the record does not establish an unpaid balance, no wage award is supported. Final order 13. The claim for $108 is denied. The alternative claim for $72 is also denied because Elena has not proved that the four-hour assignment was omitted from wages paid. No additional wages are awarded, and Grant is not ordered to pay Elena any amount under this judgment. This decision does not find that the four-hour assignment did not occur; it finds that the record does not establish an unpaid balance. The claim for the additional two hours is not proven.