Commitments and Contingencies | 17. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments Kforce has various commitments to purchase goods and services in the ordinary course of business. These commitments are primarily related to software and online application licenses and hosting. As of December 31, 2022, these purchase commitments amounted to approximately $21.9 million and are expected to be paid as follows: $15.8 million in 2023; $4.6 million in 2024, $0.8 million in 2025, $0.4 million in 2026 and $0.3 million in 2027. Letters of Credit Kforce provides letters of credit to certain vendors in lieu of cash deposits. At December 31, 2022, Kforce had letters of credit outstanding for operating lease and insurance coverage deposits totaling $1.3 million. 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 December 31, 2022, our liability would be approximately $40.3 million if, following a change in control, all of the executives under contract were terminated without good 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 good cause or if the executives resigned for good reason. Litigation We are involved in legal proceedings, claims and administrative matters 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. 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. 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. which is subject to final 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 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 Buchsbaum, et al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., which is subject to final 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 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. The parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve this matter, 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 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. The parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve this matter 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. |