Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 8 – Litigation On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller, BBSI’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees). On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims for relief. Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts similar claims for relief. On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint that asserts the same legal claims as the original lawsuits. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the lawsuits is scheduled for early September 2015. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. BBSI received a subpoena from the San Francisco office of the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in May 2015 in connection with the SEC’s investigation of the Company’s accounting practices with regard to its workers’ compensation reserves. The Company believes that the SEC’s inquiry was precipitated by the litigation described above and is cooperating fully with the SEC staff in providing the requested information. On June 17, 2015, Daniel Salinas (“Salinas”) filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against BBSI and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other violations of law and seeks recovery of various damages, including the costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Company’s reserve strengthening process, reserve study and consultants, the cost of stock repurchases by BBSI in October 2014, compensation paid to the Company’s officers, and costs of negotiating the Company’s credit facility with its principal lender, as well as the proceeds of sales of stock by certain of BBSI’s officers and directors during 2013 and 2014. The derivative claim challenges substantially the same conduct as the shareholder class action lawsuits described above. The Company’s first appearance is due September 21, 2015. The derivative lawsuit follows a prior demand letter from counsel representing Salinas received by BBSI on February 27, 2015. Management is unable to estimate the probability, or the potential range, of loss arising from these legal actions. The Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to currently pending or threatened actions is not expected to materially affect the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company.

Note 8 – Litigation

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller, BBSI’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint that asserts the same legal claims as the original lawsuits. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the lawsuits is scheduled for early September 2015. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

BBSI received a subpoena from the San Francisco office of the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in May 2015 in connection with the SEC’s investigation of the Company’s accounting practices with regard to its workers’ compensation reserves. The Company believes that the SEC’s inquiry was precipitated by the litigation described above and is cooperating fully with the SEC staff in providing the requested information.

On June 17, 2015, Daniel Salinas (“Salinas”) filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against BBSI and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other violations of law and seeks recovery of various damages, including the costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Company’s reserve strengthening process, reserve study and consultants, the cost of stock repurchases by BBSI in October 2014, compensation paid to the Company’s officers, and costs of negotiating the Company’s credit facility with its principal lender, as well as the proceeds of sales of stock by certain of BBSI’s officers and directors during 2013 and 2014. The derivative claim challenges substantially the same conduct as the shareholder class action lawsuits described above. The Company’s first appearance is due September 21, 2015. The derivative lawsuit follows a prior demand letter from counsel representing Salinas received by BBSI on February 27, 2015.

Management is unable to estimate the probability, or the potential range, of loss arising from these legal actions.

The Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to currently pending or threatened actions is not expected to materially affect the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company.