Commitments and Contingencies | Note L - Commitments and Contingencies Employment Agreements Kforce has employment agreements with certain executives that provide for certain post-employment benefits under certain circumstances. At March 31, 2023, our liability would be approximately $40.4 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 $17.4 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 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. Except as stated below, there have been no material developments with regard to the legal proceedings previously disclosed in our 2022 Annual Report on Form 10-K. 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 purportedly brought 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 sought 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 Court entered a written order granting final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement in March 2023, and the case has been dismissed. This matter did not 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 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 sought 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. The parties resolved Webb’s individual claims and the representative PAGA claim will be dismissed without prejudice following completion of the settlement. This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 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 purportedly brought 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 sought 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 sought an order requiring defendants to restore and disgorge all funds acquired by means of unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code. The Court entered a written order granting final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement in March 2023, and the case has been dismissed. This matter did not 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 purportedly brought 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 sought 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. The Court entered a written order granting final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement in March 2023, and the case has been dismissed. This matter did not 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 brought 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, sought 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 Court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement and the case was dismissed in February 2023. This matter did not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. |