Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 7 - Litigation On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI’s Chief Executive Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI’s then Chief Financial Officer. The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers’ compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees). On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar claims for relief. Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga andCarnes cases and asserted similar claims for relief. On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming BBSI, Elich and Miller as defendants. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 23, 2015, before the court had ruled on the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint, naming the same defendants. The first amended consolidated complaint included new allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 9, 2015. On February 16, 2016, BBSI filed a motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. That same day, Messrs. Elich and Miller, through separate counsel, also filed motions to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, adopting BBSI’s motion in its entirety. On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, naming the same defendants. The second amended consolidated complaint dropped certain allegations from the first amended complaint and added new allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2016. Among other disclosures, BBSI reported that (1) previously issued financial statements could not be relied on, (2) Mr. Miller had reported making unsupported journal entries, (3) Mr. Miller’s employment had been terminated, and (4) BBSI was in the process of engaging a Big Four accounting firm to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation. BBSI responded to the second amended consolidated complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2016. Messrs. Elich and Miller joined in that motion. BBSI filed its reply brief to plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 25, 2016. BBSI received a subpoena from the San Francisco office of the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in May 2015 in connection with the SEC’s investigation of the Company’s accounting practices with regard to its workers’ compensation reserves. In April 2016, the SEC issued a second subpoena to BBSI for documents relating to the disclosures made by the Company following Mr. Miller’s termination. The Company was also advised by the United States Department of Justice in mid-June 2016 that it has commenced an investigation. BBSI is cooperating fully with the investigations. On June 17, 2015, Daniel Salinas (“Salinas”) filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against BBSI and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other violations of law and seeks recovery of various damages, including the costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Company’s reserve strengthening process, reserve study and consultants, the cost of stock repurchases by BBSI in October 2014, compensation paid to the Company’s officers, and costs of negotiating the Company’s credit facility with its principal lender, as well as the proceeds of sales of stock by certain of BBSI’s officers and directors during 2013 and 2014. On September 28, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the derivative suit and a motion to stay pending resolution of In re Barrett Business Services Securities Litigation. On December 4, 2015, Salinas filed an opposition to each motion. On January 27, 2016, the defendants filed a reply to the opposition brief. On February 11, 2016, Judge Michel Pierson heard oral argument on the motions. A decision has not been issued. Management is unable to estimate the probability, or the potential range of loss arising from the legal actions described above. BBSI is subject to other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to other currently pending or threatened actions is not expected to materially affect the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Note 7 - Litigation

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI’s Chief Executive Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI’s then Chief Financial Officer. The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers’ compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar claims for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga andCarnes cases and asserted similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming BBSI, Elich and Miller as defendants. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On November 23, 2015, before the court had ruled on the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint, naming the same defendants. The first amended consolidated complaint included new allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 9, 2015.

On February 16, 2016, BBSI filed a motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. That same day, Messrs. Elich and Miller, through separate counsel, also filed motions to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, adopting BBSI’s motion in its entirety.

On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, naming the same defendants. The second amended consolidated complaint dropped certain allegations from the first amended complaint and added new allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2016. Among other disclosures, BBSI reported that (1) previously issued financial statements could not be relied on, (2) Mr. Miller had reported making unsupported journal entries, (3) Mr. Miller’s employment had been terminated, and (4) BBSI was in the process of engaging a Big Four accounting firm to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation.

BBSI responded to the second amended consolidated complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2016. Messrs. Elich and Miller joined in that motion. BBSI filed its reply brief to plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 25, 2016.

BBSI received a subpoena from the San Francisco office of the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in May 2015 in connection with the SEC’s investigation of the Company’s accounting practices with regard to its workers’ compensation reserves. In April 2016, the SEC issued a second subpoena to BBSI for documents relating to the disclosures made by the Company following Mr. Miller’s termination. The Company was also advised by the United States Department of Justice in mid-June 2016 that it has commenced an investigation. BBSI is cooperating fully with the investigations.

On June 17, 2015, Daniel Salinas (“Salinas”) filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against BBSI and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other violations of law and seeks recovery of various damages, including the costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Company’s reserve strengthening process, reserve study and consultants, the cost of stock repurchases by BBSI in October 2014, compensation paid to the Company’s officers, and costs of negotiating the Company’s credit facility with its principal lender, as well as the proceeds of sales of stock by certain of BBSI’s officers and directors during 2013 and 2014. On September 28, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the derivative suit and a motion to stay pending resolution of In re Barrett Business Services Securities Litigation. On December 4, 2015, Salinas filed an opposition to each motion. On January 27, 2016, the defendants filed a reply to the opposition brief. On February 11, 2016, Judge Michel Pierson heard oral argument on the motions. A decision has not been issued.

Management is unable to estimate the probability, or the potential range of loss arising from the legal actions described above.

BBSI is subject to other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to other currently pending or threatened actions is not expected to materially affect the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.