Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 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. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Leonor Rodriguez, 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 Diego County. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2011 were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing with clients of the Company as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Rodriguez seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Rodriguez 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. Rodriguez also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including but not limited to statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). On October 10, 2014, the Court granted a motion by the Company to compel all of Rodriguez’s claims, except the PAGA claim, to individual arbitration. 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 September 5, 2014, Plaintiff Theresa Daniels, on behalf of herself and a putative class of salaried Recruiting Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company as Defendant. The complaint alleges that salaried Recruiting Managers based in California have been misclassified under California law as exempt employees, and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees, as well as statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from such alleged misclassification. The complaint also alleges a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 for unfair competition. The Plaintiff also seeks an unspecified amount for other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties. On or about September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff provided written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of her alleged claims. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding a representative claim and request for penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. 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 in this case, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation. On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff April Washington, on her own behalf and on behalf of two separate putative subclasses, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County. The complaint alleged that the Company violated the disclosure requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) by: (i) procuring background checks on Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes without first making all required disclosures in a standalone document; and (ii) procuring drug tests on Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes without first making all required disclosures in a standalone document. In the complaint, Plaintiff sought recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative subclasses in an unspecified amount for statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each class member, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs. On April 20, 2015, the parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement with regard to Plaintiff’s individual claims in an amount immaterial to the Company and, on April 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, the Company will not make disclosures regarding this matter in its future Securities and Exchange Commission filings. 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. The complaint, which was filed by the same plaintiffs’ law firm that brought the Rodriguez matter described above, alleges claims similar to those alleged in Rodriguez. Specifically, 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. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

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.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Leonor Rodriguez, 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 Diego County. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2011 were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing with clients of the Company as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Rodriguez seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Rodriguez 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. Rodriguez also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including but not limited to statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). On October 10, 2014, the Court granted a motion by the Company to compel all of Rodriguez’s claims, except the PAGA claim, to individual arbitration. 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 September 5, 2014, Plaintiff Theresa Daniels, on behalf of herself and a putative class of salaried Recruiting Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company as Defendant. The complaint alleges that salaried Recruiting Managers based in California have been misclassified under California law as exempt employees, and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees, as well as statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from such alleged misclassification. The complaint also alleges a claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 for unfair competition. The Plaintiff also seeks an unspecified amount for other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties. On or about September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff provided written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of her alleged claims. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding a representative claim and request for penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. 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 in this case, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff April Washington, on her own behalf and on behalf of two separate putative subclasses, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County. The complaint alleged that the Company violated the disclosure requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) by: (i) procuring background checks on Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes without first making all required disclosures in a standalone document; and (ii) procuring drug tests on Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes without first making all required disclosures in a standalone document. In the complaint, Plaintiff sought recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative subclasses in an unspecified amount for statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each class member, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs. On April 20, 2015, the parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement with regard to Plaintiff’s individual claims in an amount immaterial to the Company and, on April 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, the Company will not make disclosures regarding this matter in its future Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

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. The complaint, which was filed by the same plaintiffs’ law firm that brought the Rodriguez matter described above, alleges claims similar to those alleged in Rodriguez. Specifically, 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. 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.