XML 32 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Employment Agreements Kforce has employment agreements with certain executives that provide for minimum compensation, salary and continuation of certain benefits for a six-month to a three-year period after their employment ends under certain circumstances. Certain of the agreements also provide for a severance payment ranging from one to three times annual salary and one-half to three times average annual bonus if such an agreement is terminated without good cause by Kforce or for good reason by the executive subject to certain post-employment restrictive covenants. At September 30, 2021, our liability would be approximately $45.0 million if, following a change in control, all of the executives under contract were terminated without cause by the employer or if the executives resigned for good reason and $17.3 million if, in the absence of a change in control, all of the executives under contract were terminated by Kforce without cause or if the executives resigned for good reason. Litigation and Loss Contingencies On August 30, 2021, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Darryn Lewis, et. al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.: 3:21-cv-01375-AJB-JLB. On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff brings a one-count class action complaint for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and specifically, failure to pay overtime wages. The FLSA class is purported to include commissioned employees who work or have worked for Kforce, nationwide, in the past three (3) years. Plaintiff alleges that Kforce failed to maintain a policy that compensates its employees for all hours worked, and specifically alleges that Kforce misclassified employees as exempt from overtime, failed to pay hourly aggrieved employees for all overtime hours worked, including off-the-clock work performed during meal periods, failed to pay all overtime and double-time wages earned at the correct regular rate because Kforce allegedly failed to include commission and other non-discretionary performance-based pay in the regular rate of pay. Plaintiff and class members seek the amounts of unpaid wages allegedly owed to them, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and other legal and equitable relief. The parties have engaged in attempts to resolve the matter. We believe that this matter is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On March 19, 2021, a complaint was filed against Kforce Inc. in United States District Court, Central District of California, and served on March 25, 2021. Jessica Cook, et. al. v. Kforce Inc., case no. 2:21-cv-02453. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the plaintiff purports to bring a collective action challenging the exempt classification of a select class of recruiters. Plaintiff alleges that due to the misclassification of the recruiter class Kforce violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime and failing to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each employee sufficient to determine their wages. The class action is brought pursuant to California state law, on behalf of the same class of California recruiters, and alleges: (i) classification and overtime violations under California law; (ii) untimely payment of wages; (iii) legally deficient wage statements; (iv) violations of meal and rest period requirements; and (v) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class and/or collective, seeks damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation, double time pay as applicable (for the California class), liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and other relief. The parties agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice through a joint stipulation and have engaged in discussions to resolve. If the parties are unable to resolve, it is expected that Plaintiff will re-file her class and collective action claims. At this stage in the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding. On December 24, 2020, a complaint was filed and on January 5, 2021, the complaint was served against Kforce Inc., et al. in Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County. Sydney Elliott-Brand, et. al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.: 20STCV49193. On behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former commissioned employees employed by Defendants, the plaintiff purports to bring a collective action for alleged violations of the California Labor Code, §201, et seq., Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, and the California Business and Professions Code, §17200, et. seq, based upon the defendants’ alleged failure to: (i) pay minimum and overtime wages; (ii) timely pay all earned wages; (iii) provide meal periods and rest breaks; (iv) reimburse business expenses; (v) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (vi) timely pay wages and vacation pay upon separation of employment; as well as associated unfair competition. The plaintiff seeks payment to recover minimum, regular, and/or overtime wages for all hours worked as required by law, meal period premiums, rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses, reasonable attorneys’ fees, cost of suit and interest, statutory penalties and liquidated damages, and also seeks an order requiring Defendants to restore and disgorge all funds acquired by means of unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. The parties have engaged in attempts to resolve the matter. We believe that this matter is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On November 18, 2020, Kforce Inc., et al. was served with a complaint brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County. Bernardo Buchsbaum, et al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.: 37-2020-00030994-CU-OE-CTL. The former employee purports to bring a representative action on his own behalf and on behalf of other current and former California aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) alleging violations of the California Labor Code (“Labor Code”). The purported Labor Code violations include the failure to: (i) pay all earned wages, including minimum wages and overtime wages; (ii) provide and pay proper wages for meal and rest periods; (iii) reimburse all reasonable and necessary business expenses; (iv) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (v) provide unused vacation wages upon termination. The plaintiff seeks civil penalties, interest, attorney’s fees and costs under the Labor Code. On January 21, 2021, the Plaintiff served an amended complaint to add Kforce Flexible Solutions as a party and narrow the scope of alleged aggrieved employees to “internal” commissioned employees. The parties have engaged in attempts to resolve the matter. We believe that this matter is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On October 13, 2020, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Hope Gofton and Adam Kimbrel, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.: 2:20-cv-04886 on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs purport to bring a collective action for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and a class action for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. §§ 333.101, et seq., based upon the defendant’s purported failure to pay federal and state overtime wages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant improperly classified as exempt the plaintiffs and other putative collective and class members, and allegedly failed to pay overtime wages. The plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, costs and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The Court entered a Final Approval Order on September 30, 2021 approving the settlement and dismissing the action without prejudice. Case will convert to dismissal with prejudice sixty days after the deadline to fully fund the settlement account. This matter did not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. There have been no material developments with regard to the following legal proceedings previously disclosed in our 2020 Annual Report on Form 10-K or in our most recent 10-Q filing: •On December 17, 2019, Kforce Inc., et al. was served with a complaint brought in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County. Kathleen Wahrer, et al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.: RG19047269. •On February 19, 2021, a first amended complaint was filed against Kforce and its client, Verity Health System of California (Verity) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Ramona Webb v. Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC, et. al. case no. 20STCV47529. We are also involved in other legal proceedings, claims and administrative matters from time to time, and may also be exposed to loss contingencies, that arise in the ordinary course of business. We have made accruals with respect to certain matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. While the ultimate outcomes and any amounts accrued are inherently uncertain, we currently do not expect that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position. Equity Method Investment Under the joint venture operating agreement for WorkLLama, Kforce is obligated to make additional cash contributions, which are contingent on WorkLLama's achievement of certain operational and financial milestones. Our maximum potential capital contributions are $22.5 million. The original operating and financial milestones established in the joint venture operating agreement were not achieved, in part, due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on WorkLLama’s business. We have continued to provide capital contributions to the joint venture due to our belief in the long-term value of the joint venture. We contributed $7.0 million and $4.0 million of capital during the nine months ended September 30, 2021 and the year ended December 31, 2020, respectively. Refer to Note F - “Other Assets, Net” for more details on WorkLLama. Lease commitments We lease office space and certain equipment under operating leases that expire between 2021 and 2033. The terms of the leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale, options to renew the leases (one to five years), landlord incentives or allowances, and periods of free rent. During the three months ended September 30, 2021, we entered into a lease agreement for office space in Tampa, Florida, that will become our new corporate headquarters. This new lease for office space is intended to replace our current headquarters, also in Tampa, Florida, the lease for which expires November 2022. The new lease has not yet commenced, but will require aggregate future lease payments of approximately $10.9 million over the entire lease term, which includes annual upward adjustments, and has a non-cancelable lease term of 129 months, excluding renewal options. The new lease also provides for the Company to receive an allowance, from the Landlord, of $1.6 million to be used toward costs to design, engineer, install, supply and to construct improvements that will become part of the building, all of which must be approved by the landlord and the Company. The landlord will designate a general contractor and oversee all construction improvements. The future lease payments and the allowance are not yet recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Lease payments will be required beginning July 1, 2023, however, we expect the accounting lease commencement date for this initial portion of the lease for financial reporting purposes to begin at the start of the fourth quarter of 2022.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration