Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note L—Commitments and Contingencies

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company who resided in California, were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” as well as performing activities related to the interview process. The class period runs from March 13, 2010, to present. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation and civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). On January 4, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the Company to compel all of Gentry’s claims, except the PAGA claim, to individual arbitration. On March 8, 2024, the Court issued an order certifying: (1) a class of California-based temporary employees who attended at least one uncompensated interview with a third-party client at any time since March 13, 2010; (2) a subclass of class members who held a prior temporary job assignment before interviewing for a subsequent assignment; and (3) a subclass of class members who are no longer employed by the Company (i.e., a “waiting time penalties” subclass). The first phase of the trial in the case on the issue of liability as to the Plaintiff and the class commenced on November 3, 2025. Closing arguments were delivered on January 23, 2026, at which hearing the court requested further legal briefs to be delivered February 13, 2026. The Court is permitting Robert Half to file a motion for decertification. . The timing of a liability ruling is not expected until after a case management conference on March 19, 2026. If the Court’s order on the liability phase finds in favor of Plaintiff on any of her claims, the case will move on to a second phase

of the trial on the calculation of damages later this year. This phase will have its own discovery and its own separate trial. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding and, accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company’s Financial Statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff Shari Dorff, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In addition to certain claims individual to Plaintiff Dorff, the complaint alleges that salaried recruiters based in California have been misclassified as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for: unpaid wages resulting from such alleged misclassification; alleged failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to take meal periods and rest breaks; alleged failure to pay wages on a timely basis both during employment and upon separation; alleged failure to comply with California requirements regarding wage statements and record-keeping; and alleged improper denial of expense reimbursement. Plaintiff Dorff also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees and penalties, including but not limited to statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by PAGA. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding and, accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company’s Financial Statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

The Company is involved in a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. While management does not expect any of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows, litigation is subject to certain inherent uncertainties.

Legal costs associated with the resolution of claims, lawsuits and other contingencies are expensed as incurred.

On May 28, 2025, the Company entered into a $100.0 million credit agreement (the “2025 Credit Agreement”) which matures in May 2030. Borrowings under the 2025 Credit Agreement will bear interest in accordance with the terms of the borrowing, which typically will be calculated according to the adjusted term Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), plus an applicable margin. The 2025 Credit Agreement is subject to certain financial covenants, and the Company was in compliance with these covenants as of December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had no borrowings under the Credit Agreement, and maintained $10.1 million in standby letters of credit to satisfy workers’ compensation insurer’s collateral requirements.

In connection with entering into the 2025 Credit Agreement, the Company terminated its prior Credit Agreement dated May 11, 2020 (as amended from time to time, the “2020 Credit Agreement”). At the time of termination, the 2020 Credit Agreement provided for up to $100 million of borrowings and the Company had no outstanding borrowings. There were no early termination fees associated with the Company’s termination of the 2020 Credit Agreement. There were no borrowings outstanding under the 2020 Credit Agreement as of December 31, 2025.