Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 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 alleged 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 sought recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Rodriguez also sought recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements, as well as 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. On September 11, 2018, the parties settled the individual arbitration claims for an amount immaterial to the Company and, on October 19, 2018, the Court dismissed the PAGA claim with prejudice. Accordingly, the Company will not make disclosures regarding this case in its future SEC 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, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. 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 and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by 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. 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 California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“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.

Commitments and Contingencies

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 alleged 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 sought recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Rodriguez also sought recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements, as well as 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. On September 11, 2018, the parties settled the individual arbitration claims for an amount immaterial to the Company and, on October 19, 2018, the Court dismissed the PAGA claim with prejudice. Accordingly, the Company will not make disclosures regarding this case in its future SEC 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, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. 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 and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by 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. 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 California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“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.