Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 6 – Litigation On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana (“Kaanaana”), a former staffing employee, filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (“the District”). The trial court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor regarding certain alleged meal break violations but ruled in favor of BBSI with respect to the application of the California prevailing wage law to the District and other claims. These latter rulings were appealed by the plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeal. On November 30, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District returned its decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., overruling the trial court's decision to dismiss the prevailing wage claim, ruling that the work in question at the District constituted “public works” under the applicable law, and also ruling that plaintiffs’ were entitled to additional remedies with regard to the meal break violations under California law. On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the California Supreme Court. On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the petition to review the Court of Appeal’s decision with respect to the prevailing wage issue. A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29, 2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in question was a “public work” and therefore would be subject to prevailing wage requirements. No damages were awarded in the appeals process. The case was remanded to Superior Court for any such determination with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and any additional remedies for the meal break violations. On December 7, 2021 the parties engaged in a mediation effort which resulted in a settlement agreement on December 22, 2021. The settlement is subject to customary court approval. On January 17, 2018 and January 18, 2018, respectively, suits were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz by Sandra Gill, Robert Seth Gill Jr. and Alyssa Gill, individually and on behalf of the estate of Robert S. Gill, Sr., and by Stephen and Torrey Whitmire, against Hildebrand and Sons Trucking, Daniel Harrington, BBSI, the State of California, Department of Transportation, the State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs seeking monetary damages arising out of personal injuries and a fatality suffered after Messrs. Gill and Whitmire were struck by a truck at a California highway mudslide removal operation. Hildebrand was a PEO client of BBSI and operated the truck involved in the accident. The actions allege that the injuries and death were the result of, among other things, the negligent actions of a Hildebrand employee, and the unsafe conditions at the mudslide removal operation. Plaintiffs contend that BBSI is responsible because, among other things, it was allegedly a joint-employer of the Hildebrand employee. BBSI contends that it was not a joint-employer and therefore is not responsible for employee conduct or the conditions at the worksite. In 2021 BBSI sought summary judgment to be removed from the case. The trial court denied BBSI’s motion on the ground that it is a question for a jury to decide whether or not BBSI was an employer under applicable California law. Given the uncertainties of litigation, BBSI management is not able to estimate to what extent BBSI may be found liable, if at all, in this matter. However, BBSI believes plaintiffs’ claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims. In addition to the matters above, BBSI is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. There are significant uncertainties surrounding litigation. For the settlement discussed above, as well as other cases, management has recorded estimated liabilities of $2.4 million in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Litigation

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 6 – Litigation

On November 21, 2012, David Kaanaana (“Kaanaana”), a former staffing employee, filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit against BBSI in the California Superior Court on behalf of himself and certain other employees who worked at County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (“the District”). The trial court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor regarding certain alleged meal break violations but ruled in favor of BBSI with respect to the application of the California prevailing wage law to the District and other claims. These latter rulings were appealed by the plaintiffs to the California Court of Appeal. On November 30, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District returned its decision in Kaanaana v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., overruling the trial court's decision to dismiss the prevailing wage claim, ruling that the work in question at the District constituted “public works” under the applicable law, and also ruling that plaintiffs’ were entitled to additional remedies with regard to the meal break violations under California law. On January 9, 2019, BBSI filed a petition of review to the California Supreme Court.

On February 27, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the petition to review the Court of Appeal’s decision with respect to the prevailing wage issue. A decision from the California Supreme Court was issued March 29, 2021 affirming the Court of Appeal decision and concluding that the recycling sorting work performed by the staffing employees in question was a “public work” and therefore would be subject to prevailing wage requirements. No damages were awarded in the appeals process. The case was remanded to Superior Court for any such determination with respect to both the prevailing wage issue and any additional remedies for the meal break violations. On December 7, 2021 the parties engaged in a mediation effort which resulted in a settlement agreement on December 22, 2021. The settlement is subject to customary court approval.

On January 17, 2018 and January 18, 2018, respectively, suits were filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Cruz by Sandra Gill, Robert Seth Gill Jr. and Alyssa Gill, individually and on behalf of the estate of Robert S. Gill, Sr., and by Stephen and Torrey Whitmire, against Hildebrand and Sons Trucking, Daniel Harrington, BBSI, the State of California, Department of Transportation, the State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs seeking monetary damages arising out of personal injuries and a fatality suffered after Messrs. Gill and Whitmire were struck by a truck at a California highway mudslide removal operation. Hildebrand was a PEO client of BBSI and operated the truck involved in the accident. The actions allege that the injuries and death were the result of, among other things, the negligent actions of a Hildebrand employee, and the unsafe conditions at the mudslide removal operation. Plaintiffs contend that BBSI is responsible because, among other things, it was allegedly a joint-employer of the Hildebrand employee. BBSI contends that it was not a joint-employer and therefore is not responsible for employee conduct or the conditions at the worksite. In 2021 BBSI sought summary judgment to be removed from the case. The trial court denied BBSI’s motion on the ground that it is a question for a jury to decide whether or not BBSI was an employer under applicable California law. Given the uncertainties of litigation, BBSI management is not able to estimate to what extent BBSI may be found liable, if at all, in this matter. However, BBSI believes plaintiffs’ claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims.

In addition to the matters above, BBSI is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. There are significant uncertainties surrounding litigation. For the settlement discussed above, as well as other cases, management has recorded estimated liabilities of $2.4 million in other accrued liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.