Why Receipts.law exists
Most workplace-retaliation cases fail not because the employee was wrong, but because they were unprepared. This is the tool we wish we'd had.
Why we started
Receipts.law came out of watching someone we knew fight a retaliation case. They had reported unsafe conditions at work. Within days, an adverse action landed. Hours were cut. Records were "updated." A signed document appeared that didn't match the original.
They did one thing right: they photographed everything early. Original onboarding documents. Original training records. Every email to HR. Contemporaneous, dated, on their own phone.
And then they sat down to talk to attorneys. The pattern was always the same: "Your story sounds compelling, but I'd need to spend twenty hours organizing all of this before I could even tell you whether you have a case. And I can't take that on contingency without evaluating it first." Smaller firms didn't have bandwidth. Bigger firms wanted retainers.
The lesson wasn't about the law. The law was on their side. The lesson was that the law doesn't help you unless your evidence is organized — and most people never make it past that bar.
So we started building. First as a one-off case-organization workspace. Then we realized: every employee in this situation needs this. Most never get it.
What we believe
- The asymmetry is real. Employers have HR, in-house counsel, document-retention policies, and a financial incentive to outlast you. You have your memory and your phone.
- Most cases don't fail in court. They fail before they get there — at the consultation stage — because the facts aren't organized enough for an attorney to evaluate.
- The doctrine matters. Courts have spent decades building frameworks (Burlington v. White, Vance v. Ball State, Faragher-Ellerth) that protect employees in exactly these situations. Most employees have never heard of them. Most evidence is presented without reference to them.
- AI is good at organization. We don't use it to predict outcomes (we never will). We use it to surface patterns, anchor facts to doctrine, and produce the kind of materials an attorney can read in twenty minutes instead of three hours.
- Anonymized data should drive the product. The Reddit pain-points we mine, the precedent corpus we cite, the patterns we surface — all of it is anonymized aggregate. Your individual case content is encrypted, private, and never used to train any AI.
What we won't do
- We will never predict the outcome of your case. That's a licensed attorney's call.
- We will never give you legal advice. We describe doctrine; an attorney applies it.
- We will never sell your data, share it with employers, or use your case content to train AI models.
- We will never tell you to file something by a specific date. Deadlines are jurisdiction-specific; we'll surface that they may be running, but the attorney calculates the specifics.
How we make money
Right now: we don't. Receipts.law is free during private beta. If the model proves itself useful, we'll add a paid tier for advanced features (longer event histories, multi-attorney vetting, document-templating) while keeping the core intake + analysis + deliverables free.
We will not run ads, and we will not sell access to your data to plaintiff-side law firms or anyone else.
The disclaimer that ends every page on this site
This is not legal advice. Receipts.law is a fact-organization tool, not a law firm. Whether you have a viable legal claim — and what to do about it — depends on jurisdiction-specific law that only a licensed attorney in your state can evaluate. If you have a workplace dispute that may have legal consequences, consult one.
Contact
Feedback, bug reports, and "this helped me" emails are all welcome. We're listening. (Contact details will appear here once we set up a public-facing inbox.)