XML 19 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies  
Commitments and Contingencies

Note G—Commitments and Contingencies

On September 10, 2004, Plaintiff Mark Laffitte, on behalf of himself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants. The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers based in California have been misclassified under California law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these employees as exempt employees. On September 18, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying a class with respect to claims for alleged unpaid overtime pay and related statutory penalties but denied certification with respect to claims relating to meal periods and rest time breaks. The Court has stayed the litigation until a decision by the California Supreme Court in a case titled Pellegrino, et al. v. Robert Half International Inc. As previously disclosed, the Company believes that Pellegrino is not a material pending legal proceeding. However, rulings by the California Supreme Court in Pellegrino or in Harris v. Superior Court, a case unrelated to the Company, may have a material adverse bearing on the Company's position in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the accompanying financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On February 23, 2011, Plaintiff Isabel Apolinario, on behalf of herself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants. The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers based in California have been misclassified under California law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these employees as exempt employees. The Court has stayed this case until decisions by the California Supreme Court in the Pellegrino and Harris cases referenced in the first paragraph of this Note G. Rulings by the California Supreme Court in Pellegrino or Harris may have a material adverse bearing on the Company's position in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company's financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in this case, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On September 24, 2007, Plaintiff Van Williamson, on behalf of himself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants. The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers based in California were not provided meal periods, paid rest periods, and accurate itemized wage statements. It seeks one hour of wages for each employee for each meal and rest period missed during the statutory liability period. It also seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged failure to provide the meal and rest periods and accurate itemized wage statements. The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to the allegations included in the complaint filed by Mark Laffitte described above. The Court stayed the litigation pending the California Supreme Court's decisions in two cases unrelated to the Company: Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court and Harris, a case referenced in the first paragraph of this Note G. A ruling in the Harris case, the Brinker case, and/or the Pellegrino case referenced in the first paragraph of this Note G, may have a material adverse bearing on the Company's position in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the accompanying financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On April 23, 2010, Plaintiffs David Opalinski and James McCabe, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated Staffing Managers, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company and one of its subsidiaries as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers located throughout the U.S. have been misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime on behalf of themselves and the class they purport to represent. Plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount for statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and other damages. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding and, accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company's financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On May 13, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Merchant filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming a division of the Company as a Defendant. The complaint alleges certain technical violations of the California Labor Code regarding the presentation formatting of wage statements of certain current and former hourly employees and seeks an unspecified amount for penalties, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The plaintiff seeks to pursue these allegations in two representative capacities: (1) as the representative of a class seeking certain statutory penalties and requiring court certification to proceed; and (2) separately, as a private attorney general seeking certain civil penalties and requiring no court certification to proceed. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the accompanying financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

The Company is involved in a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. While management does not expect any of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows, litigation is subject to certain inherent uncertainties.

Legal costs associated with the resolution of claims, lawsuits and other contingencies are expensed as incurred.