Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

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 working in California since March 13, 2010, 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. 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 to former employees and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys 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 on the issue of liability commenced on November 3, 2025. Closing arguments were delivered on January 23, 2026 and final briefs submitted. The Court’s findings and final order on the liability phase are expected prior to a case management conference currently scheduled for May 21, 2026. If the Court’s order on liability finds in favor of Plaintiff on any claims, the case will move to a second phase regarding damages which would have its own discovery and 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. On April 8, 2026, Dorff’s motion for

certification of a class was heard by the Court. On April 20, 2026, the Court issued an order denying Dorff’s motion for certification of a class. Dorff has 10 days to seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling or file a petition for writ relief from the Court’s order. 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.

The Company has 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 March 31, 2026. As of March 31, 2026, the Company had no cash borrowings under the 2025 Credit Agreement, and maintained $10.1 million in standby letters of credit to satisfy workers’ compensation insurers’ collateral requirements.