Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 6 – Litigation On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana (“Kaanaana”), a former staffing employee, filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (“the District”). The trial court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor regarding certain alleged meal break violations but ruled in favor of BBSI with respect to the application of the California prevailing wage law to the District and other claims. These latter rulings were appealed by the plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeal. On November 30, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District returned its decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., overruling the trial court's decision to dismiss the prevailing wage claim, ruling that the work in question at the District constituted “public works” under the applicable law, and also ruling that plaintiffs’ were entitled to additional remedies with regard to the meal break violations under California law. On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the California Supreme Court. On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the petition to review the Court of Appeal’s decision with respect to the prevailing wage issue. A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29, 2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in question was a “public work” and therefore would be subject to prevailing wage requirements. No damages were awarded in the appeals process. The case was remanded to Superior Court for any such determination with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and any additional remedies for the meal break violations. On December 7, 2021 the parties engaged in a mediation effort which resulted in a settlement agreement on December 22, 2021. The settlement is subject to customary court approval. On January 17, 2018 and January 18, 2018, respectively, suits were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz by Sandra Gill, Robert Seth Gill Jr. and Alyssa Gill, individually and on behalf of the estate of Robert S. Gill, Sr., and by Stephen and Torrey Whitmire, against Hildebrand and Sons Trucking, Daniel Harrington, BBSI, the State of California, Department of Transportation, the State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs seeking monetary damages arising out of personal injuries and a fatality suffered after Messrs. Gill and Whitmire were struck by a truck at a California highway mudslide removal operation. Hildebrand was a PEO client of BBSI and operated the truck involved in the accident. The actions allege that the injuries and death were the result of, among other things, the negligent actions of a Hildebrand employee, and the unsafe conditions at the mudslide removal operation. In February 2023, BBSI and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle, which removed BBSI from the suit. On April 5, 2011, several individual plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class action in the California Superior Court, County of Fresno, naming as defendants their employer, a Merry Maids franchisee; BBSI, which was providing PEO services to the franchisee; and various parties related to the franchisor. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that BBSI and the franchisor were their joint employer with franchisee and therefore jointly responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and on January 18, 2019, the District Court certified a class of former non-exempt employees who resided in California and worked for the franchisee in certain positions during the period from April 6, 2007 through January 19, 2019. On November 30, 2020, the District Court granted BBSI’s motion for summary judgment to be removed from the case. Thereafter the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on June 2, 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to BBSI. The court held that there is a triable issue of fact concerning whether or not BBSI was a joint-employer under applicable California law. BBSI intends to vigorously defend the claim, including continuing to assert its defense on the ground that it was not a joint-employer of plaintiffs. Given the uncertainties surrounding this litigation, management is unable to estimate a potential range of loss. In addition to the matters above, BBSI is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. There are significant uncertainties surrounding litigation. For the matters discussed above, as well as other cases, management has recorded estimated liabilities totaling $2.7 million in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Litigation

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 6 – Litigation

On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana (“Kaanaana”), a former staffing employee, filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (“the District”). The trial court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor regarding certain alleged meal break violations but ruled in favor of BBSI with respect to the application of the California prevailing wage law to the District and other claims. These latter rulings were appealed by the plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeal. On November 30, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District returned its decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., overruling the trial court's decision to dismiss the prevailing wage claim, ruling that the work in question at the District constituted “public works” under the applicable law, and also ruling that plaintiffs’ were entitled to additional remedies with regard to the meal break violations under California law. On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the California Supreme Court.

On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the petition to review the Court of Appeal’s decision with respect to the prevailing wage issue. A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29, 2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in question was a “public work” and therefore would be subject to prevailing wage requirements. No damages were awarded in the appeals process. The case was remanded to Superior Court for any such determination with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and any additional remedies for the meal break violations. On December 7, 2021 the parties engaged in a mediation effort which resulted in a settlement agreement on December 22, 2021. The settlement is subject to customary court approval.

On January 17, 2018 and January 18, 2018, respectively, suits were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz by Sandra Gill, Robert Seth Gill Jr. and Alyssa Gill, individually and on behalf of the estate of Robert S. Gill, Sr., and by Stephen and Torrey Whitmire, against Hildebrand and Sons Trucking, Daniel Harrington, BBSI, the State of California, Department of Transportation, the State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs seeking monetary damages arising out of personal injuries and a fatality suffered after Messrs. Gill and Whitmire were struck by a truck at a California highway mudslide removal operation. Hildebrand was a PEO client of BBSI and operated the truck involved in the accident. The actions allege that the injuries and death were the result of, among other things, the negligent actions of a Hildebrand employee, and the unsafe conditions at the mudslide removal operation. In February 2023, BBSI and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle, which removed BBSI from the suit.

On April 5, 2011, several individual plaintiffs filed a wage and hour class action in the California Superior Court, County of Fresno, naming as defendants their employer, a Merry Maids franchisee; BBSI, which was providing PEO services to the franchisee; and various parties related to the franchisor. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that BBSI and the franchisor were their joint employer with franchisee and therefore jointly responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and on January 18, 2019, the District Court certified a class of former non-exempt employees who resided in California and worked for the franchisee in certain positions during the period from April 6, 2007 through January 19, 2019. On November 30, 2020, the District Court granted BBSI’s motion for summary judgment to be removed from the case. Thereafter the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on June 2, 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to BBSI. The court held that there is a triable issue of fact concerning whether or not BBSI was a joint-employer under applicable California law. BBSI intends to vigorously defend the claim, including continuing to assert its defense on the ground that it was not a joint-employer of plaintiffs. Given the uncertainties surrounding this litigation, management is unable to estimate a potential range of loss.

In addition to the matters above, BBSI is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. There are significant uncertainties surrounding litigation. For the matters discussed above, as well as other cases, management has recorded estimated liabilities totaling $2.7 million in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.