Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies	Note F—Commitments and Contingencies On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff Vincent Uberti, on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint naming the Company (as well other defendants). With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing with current and potential clients of the Company over an alleged “Class Period” covering four years prior to the filing of the complaint. Uberti seeks recovery on his own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Uberti also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide him and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Uberti also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for statutory penalties, attorney’s fees and other damages. On July 18, 2013, the United States District Court ordered that: (i) Uberti’s claims against the Company must be arbitrated; (ii) the class action waiver in the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims between the Company and Uberti was enforceable and not unconscionable; and (iii) that the case would be stayed as to Uberti’s claims against the Company. The Company has determined that this litigation is not currently a material legal proceeding. Accordingly, the Company does not presently intend to make disclosures regarding this case in its future Securities and Exchange Commission filings. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiffs David Opalinski and James McCabe, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated Staffing Managers, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company and one of its subsidiaries as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers located throughout the U.S. have been misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime on behalf of themselves and the class they purport to represent. Plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount for statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and other damages. On October 6, 2011, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs’ allegations. At this stage, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from these allegations 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 allegations. 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.

Note F—Commitments and Contingencies

On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff Vincent Uberti, on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint naming the Company (as well other defendants). With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing with current and potential clients of the Company over an alleged “Class Period” covering four years prior to the filing of the complaint. Uberti seeks recovery on his own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Uberti also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide him and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Uberti also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for statutory penalties, attorney’s fees and other damages. On July 18, 2013, the United States District Court ordered that: (i) Uberti’s claims against the Company must be arbitrated; (ii) the class action waiver in the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims between the Company and Uberti was enforceable and not unconscionable; and (iii) that the case would be stayed as to Uberti’s claims against the Company. The Company has determined that this litigation is not currently a material legal proceeding. Accordingly, the Company does not presently intend to make disclosures regarding this case in its future Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

On April 23, 2010, Plaintiffs David Opalinski and James McCabe, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated Staffing Managers, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company and one of its subsidiaries as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers located throughout the U.S. have been misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime on behalf of themselves and the class they purport to represent. Plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount for statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and other damages. On October 6, 2011, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs’ allegations. At this stage, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from these allegations 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 allegations.

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.