Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Rania Haddad brings this employment pay claim against Samer Nassar for JOD 120. She accepts that she received a JOD 120 advance in February. She says Samer later deducted that same amount from her March wages and then deducted it again from her April wages. She asks for the April JOD 120 only. 2. Samer disputes that the advance was repaid in March and relies on a signed receipt for the February advance. His submissions also request the JOD 120 he says remains owed. The record, however, contains no separate claim by Samer seeking an order for payment to him. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Rania proved that the February advance was repaid from March wages, and whether she is entitled to recover the JOD 120 withheld from April wages. 4. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than unsupported recollections. Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. These supplied rules govern the proof and accounting questions here. Submissions of the parties 5. Rania argues that Samer’s April message confirms that he deducted JOD 120 from her JOD 360 April salary and transferred JOD 240. She points to her reply, “You already took that in March,” as a contemporaneous objection. She acknowledges that she has no March wage record or separate repayment receipt and that her reply does not independently prove the March deduction. She seeks only the April JOD 120, and only if the Court finds the advance had already been recovered. 6. Samer argues that there was no March transfer clarifying that the advance had been repaid and relies on the signed receipt for the February advance. He says the JOD 120 remains owed. His submissions do not identify a March wage record or other accounting showing whether a March deduction occurred. Evidence and findings 7. The shared WhatsApp exchange is presented as an exhibit and is relied on by both sides. Samer’s message says, “April salary 360, less February advance 120; transferred 240.” Rania replies, “You already took that in March.” The message is direct evidence of the April calculation and of Rania’s objection at that time. It is not a March pay record and does not independently confirm that a March deduction occurred. 8. Rania’s submissions consistently say that the advance was taken from March pay, but she expressly acknowledges the absence of a March wage record or separate repayment receipt. Her account and contemporaneous objection support that she asserted prior repayment; they do not establish the underlying deduction. The signed receipt, as described in Samer’s submissions, supports that Rania received the February advance. It does not show whether or when she repaid it. 9. The record therefore establishes that JOD 120 was withheld from April wages, but leaves uncertain whether the advance had already been repaid in March. The repeated copies of the same April message do not add independent proof of the March event. Reasons 10. On the March repayment issue, Rania bears the burden because she relies on prior repayment to show that the April deduction was a second recovery and that the withheld amount should be returned. Her contemporaneous reply is relevant and supports her account that she disputed the deduction promptly. But the reply records her assertion, not the March wage transaction itself. Rania’s candid acknowledgment that she has no March wage record or separate receipt confirms the evidentiary gap. Under Rules 1 and 2, the Court cannot treat the assertion alone as proof of repayment. This issue is not proven. 11. Samer’s signed receipt does not resolve the March question in his favor as affirmative proof that no repayment occurred. It establishes the advance, not its continuing unpaid status. Nevertheless, the burden is Rania’s; Samer was not required to prove that repayment did not occur. The absence of a March accounting leaves the issue uncertain, and that uncertainty falls against the party who must prove repayment. 12. On the April withholding issue, the shared message is specific and consistent: JOD 360 salary, JOD 120 deducted, and JOD 240 transferred. The Court finds the withholding established. Rule 25 calls for clear accounting, and the message supplies the April figures. But proof that money was withheld does not by itself prove that it was wrongfully withheld. Rania’s entitlement to recover it depends on proving that the advance had already been repaid or otherwise showing that the April deduction was not due. She has not established that necessary fact. 13. Rania’s request is narrow and conditional, and the Court has considered it on that basis. Because the condition—prior repayment in March—is not proven, the request for repayment of the April JOD 120 must be denied. This ruling does not find that a March deduction definitely did not occur; it finds only that the available record does not prove that it did. Nor does the ruling grant Samer a payment order, because no such relief is properly established for decision on this record. Final order 14. Rania Haddad’s claim for JOD 120 is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. The Court finds that JOD 120 was withheld from Rania’s April wages, but that she has not proven that the February advance had already been repaid from March wages. No additional amount, interest, or costs are awarded.