XML 31 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Rental expense, primarily for office premises, amounted to $87.3 million, $85.9 million and $89.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The approximate minimum rental commitments for 2017 and thereafter under non-cancelable leases in effect at December 31, 2016 were as follows (in thousands):
2017 | $ | 85,143 |
2018 | 70,863 |
2019 | 55,691 |
2020 | 47,642 |
2021 | 33,662 |
Thereafter | 66,939 |
| $ | 359,940 |
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. On October 6, 2011, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs’ allegations. At this stage, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from these allegations 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 continue to vigorously defend against the allegations. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Leonor Rodriguez, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2011 were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing with clients of the Company as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Rodriguez seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Rodriguez also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Rodriguez also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including but not limited to statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). On October 10, 2014, the Court granted a motion by the Company to compel all of Rodriguez’s claims, except the PAGA claim, to individual arbitration. 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 continue to vigorously defend against the litigation. On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint, which was filed by the same plaintiffs’ law firm that brought the Rodriguez matter described above, alleges claims similar to those alleged in Rodriguez. Specifically, the complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2010 were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation to former employees and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by PAGA. On January 4, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the Company to compel all of Gentry’s claims, except the PAGA claim, to individual arbitration. 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 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration