XML 30 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Employment Agreements Kforce has employment agreements with certain executives that provide for certain post-employment benefits under certain circumstances. At June 30, 2022, our liability would be approximately $38.2 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 $13.7 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 Except as stated below, there have been no material developments with regard to the legal proceedings previously disclosed in our 2021 Annual Report on Form 10-K or in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2022. 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 Number: RG19047269. The former employee purports to bring a representative action on her own behalf and on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees pursuant to California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Section 2968, et seq. (“PAGA”) alleging violations of the California Labor Code, §201, et seq. (“Labor Code”). The plaintiff seeks civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs under the Labor Code for alleged failure to: provide and pay for work performed during meal and rest periods; properly calculate and pay all earned minimum and overtime wages; provide compliant wage statements; timely pay wages during employment and upon termination; and reimburse business expenses. 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. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the claims. 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, which was subsequently amended on January 21, 2021, to add Kforce Flexible Solutions as a party. Bernardo Buchsbaum, et al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., Case Number: 37-2020-00030994-CU-OE-CTL. The former employee purports to bring a representative action on his own behalf and on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA alleging violations of the Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks civil penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs under the Labor Code for alleged failure to: properly calculate and pay all earned minimum and overtime wages; provide and pay for work performed during meal and rest periods; reimburse business expenses; provide compliant wage statements; and provide unused vacation wages upon termination. The parties reached a preliminary settlement agreement to resolve this matter along with Elliott-Brand, et al. v. Kforce Inc., et al. and Lewis, et al. v. Kforce Inc., which is subject to approval by the Court. Plaintiff Buchsbaum has been added as a plaintiff to the Elliott-Brand lawsuit, and this lawsuit will be dismissed after the Court’s approval of the settlement. 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 December 11, 2020, a complaint was filed against Kforce and its client, Verity Health System of California (Verity) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was subsequently amended on February 19, 2021. Ramona Webb v. Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC, et al., Case Number: 20STCV47529. Former consultant Ramona Webb has sued both Kforce and Verity alleging certain individual claims in addition to a PAGA claim based on alleged violations of various provisions of the Labor Code. With respect to the PAGA claim, Plaintiff seeks to recover on her behalf, on behalf of the State of California, and on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved employees, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, attorney’s fees and costs. 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. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the claims. On December 24, 2020, a complaint was filed 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 Number: 20STCV49193. On January 7, 2022, the lawsuit was amended to add Bernardo Buchsbaum and Josie Meister as plaintiffs and to add claims under PAGA and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. On behalf of themselves and a putative class and collective of talent recruiters and allegedly aggrieved employees in California and nationwide, the plaintiffs purport to bring a class action for alleged violations of the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the California Business and Professions Code, §17200, et seq., a collective action for alleged violations of FLSA, and a PAGA action for alleged violations of the Labor Code. The plaintiffs seek payment to recover unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, penalties, and liquidated damages for alleged failure to: properly calculate and pay all earned minimum and overtime wages; provide meal and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; provide accurate itemized wage statements; reimburse for all business expenses; pay wages due upon separation; and pay for all hours worked over forty in one or more workweeks. Plaintiffs also seek 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 reached a preliminary agreement to resolve this matter along with Lewis, et al. v. Kforce Inc. and Buchsbaum, et al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., which is subject to approval by the Court, and we have set reserves accordingly. 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 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 Number: 3:21-cv-01375-AJB-JLB. On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the plaintiff brings a one-count class action complaint for alleged violations of the FLSA, and specifically, failure to pay overtime wages to a putative class of commissioned employees who work or have worked for Kforce, nationwide, in the past three (3) years. Plaintiff and class members seek the amounts of unpaid wages and benefits allegedly owed to them, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, economic and/or special damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and other legal and equitable relief for alleged failure to: maintain a policy that compensates its employees for all hours worked; properly classify employees as nonexempt from overtime; and pay overtime pay for all hours worked over forty in one or more workweeks. The parties reached a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting the parties’ joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice and his putative collective claims without prejudice. This matter did not result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. On January 6, 2022, a complaint was filed against Kforce Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles and was served on January 21, 2022. Jessica Cook and Brianna Pratt, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case Number: 22STCV00602. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action alleging violations of Labor Code and the California Business and Professional Code and challenging the exempt classification of a select class of recruiters. Plaintiffs and class members seek damages for all earned wages, statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and interest for alleged failure to: properly classify certain recruiters as nonexempt from overtime; timely pay all wages earned, including overtime premium pay; provide accurate wage statements; provide meal and rest periods; and comply with California's Unfair Competition Law. Kforce anticipated this action would be filed as a result of failed early resolution attempts in the previously disclosed Jessica Cook v. Kforce, et al. lawsuit. 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. We intend to vigorously defend the claims. On January 6, 2022, a complaint was filed against Kforce Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and was served on February 4, 2022. Sam Whiteman, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case Number: 8:22-cv-00056. On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the plaintiff brings a one-count collective action complaint for alleged violations of the FLSA by failing to pay overtime wages. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative collective, seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment interest for alleged failure to properly classify specified recruiters as nonexempt from overtime and properly compensate for all hours worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks. 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. We intend to vigorously defend the claims. We are involved in 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 of these matters, where appropriate, that are reflected in our consolidated financial statements but are not, individually or in the aggregate, considered material. For other matters for which an accrual has not been made, we have not yet determined that a loss is probable, or the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. While the ultimate outcome of the matters cannot be determined, we currently do not expect that these proceedings and claims, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and if decided adversely to us, or if we determine that settlement of particular litigation is appropriate, we may be subject to liability that could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Kforce maintains liability insurance in amounts and with such coverage and deductibles as management believes is reasonable. The principal liability risks that Kforce insures against are workers’ compensation, personal injury, bodily injury, property damage, directors’ and officers’ liability, errors and omissions, cyber liability, employment practices liability and fidelity losses. There can be no assurance that Kforce’s liability insurance will cover all events or that the limits of coverage will be sufficient to fully cover all liabilities. Equity Method Investment In June 2019, we entered into a joint venture whereby Kforce obtained a 50% noncontrolling interest in WorkLLama. We determined, based on the corporate structure and governance, that WorkLLama is a variable interest entity and not subject to consolidation, as we are not the primary beneficiary of WorkLLama because we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact WorkLLama’s economic performance. As a result, WorkLLama is accounted for as an equity method investment. Under the joint venture operating agreement for WorkLLama, Kforce was originally obligated to make additional cash contributions subsequent to the initial contribution, contingent on WorkLLama's achievement of certain operational and financial milestones. Under the operating agreement, our maximum potential capital contributions were $22.5 million. Although the operational and financial milestones were not achieved, we contributed the full $22.5 million as of June 30, 2022. We contributed $0.5 million and $9.0 million of capital during the six months ended June 30, 2022 and the year ended December 31, 2021, respectively. \We review the equity method investment for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the investment may not be recoverable. An impairment loss is recognized in the event that an other-than-temporary decline in the fair value of the investment occurs. Management’s estimate of the fair value of an investment is based on the income approach and market approach. Like most developing business enterprises, WorkLLama was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic over the last two years. Additionally, in 2021, WorkLLama also strategically repositioned its business to focus its platform on providing its clients with an ability to directly source and engage talent. While WorkLLama is seeing demand for its platform, it has taken longer than expected to achieve its financial expectations. Given this, Kforce management determined that a triggering event had occurred. Thus, we performed an impairment test as of June 30, 2022, utilizing the market and income approaches. For the income approach, we utilized estimated discounted future cash flows expected to be generated by WorkLLama. For the market approach, we utilized market multiples of revenue and earnings derived from comparable publicly-traded companies. These types of analyses contain uncertainties because they require management to make significant assumptions and judgments, including: (1) an appropriate rate to discount the expected future cash flows; (2) the inherent risk in achieving forecasted operating results; (3) long-term growth rates; (4) expectations for future economic cycles; (5) market comparable companies and appropriate adjustments thereto; and (6) market multiples. The fair value determined in our impairment test is highly sensitive to changes in key assumptions, including but not limited to the discount rate that is applied to the financial projections. As a result of the impairment test, we concluded that the carrying value of the equity method investment was not impaired. However, if the joint venture is unable to achieve its financial projections or if there is a change in the assumptions used to value our interest in the joint venture, then it is reasonably possible that the carrying value of the equity investment may need to be written down to the fair value resulting in an impairment charge in a future quarter. As of June 30, 2022, the fair value of the equity investment, determined in our impairment test, exceeded the carrying value by less than ten percent. Lease commitments We lease office space and certain equipment under operating leases that expire between 2022 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 year ended December 31, 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. 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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 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 https://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 https://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