XML 32 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.21.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Employment Agreements
Kforce has employment agreements with certain executives that provide for minimum compensation, salary and continuation of certain benefits for a six-month to a three-year period after their employment ends under certain circumstances. Certain of the agreements also provide for a severance payment ranging from one to three times annual salary and one-half to three times average annual bonus if such an agreement is terminated without good cause by Kforce or for good reason by the executive subject to certain post-employment restrictive covenants. At June 30, 2021, our liability would be approximately $45.0 million if, following a change in control, all of the executives under contract were terminated without cause by the employer or if the executives resigned for good reason and $17.3 million if, in the absence of a change in control, all of the executives under contract were terminated by Kforce without cause or if the executives resigned for good reason.
Litigation and Loss Contingencies
Unless otherwise noted below, there have been no material developments with regard to any of the legal proceedings previously disclosed in our 2020 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
On February 19, 2021, a first amended complaint was filed against Kforce and its client, Verity Health System of California (Verity) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Ramona Webb v. Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC, et. al. case no. 20STCV47529. Former consultant Ramona Webb, who worked for client Verity, has sued both Kforce and Verity alleging gender discrimination (sex harassment), disability discrimination, wrongful discharge in violation of California public policy, retaliation for engaging in protected activity, failure to produce employment records, and a California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim based on violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code. With respect to her individual claims, plaintiff seeks to recover medical expenses, past and future economic loss, pain and suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs. With respect to the PAGA claim, Plaintiff seeks to recover on their behalf, on behalf of the State of California, and on behalf of all current and former allegedly aggrieved employees of defendants, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, attorney’s fees and costs. At this stage in the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding.
On March 19, 2021, a complaint was filed against Kforce Inc. in United States District Court, Central District of California, and served on March 25, 2021. Jessica Cook, et. al. v. Kforce Inc., case no. 2:21-cv-02453. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the plaintiff purports to bring a collective action challenging the exempt classification of a select class of recruiters. Plaintiff alleges that due to the misclassification of the recruiter class Kforce violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime and failing to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each employee sufficient to determine their wages. The class action is brought pursuant to California state law, on behalf of the same class of California recruiters, and alleges: (i) classification and overtime violations under California law; (ii) untimely payment of wages; (iii) legally deficient wage statements; (iv) violations of meal and rest period requirements; and (v) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class and/or collective, seeks damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation, double time pay as applicable (for the California class), liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and other relief. The parties reached agreement to attempt resolution by mediation, and as a result, filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice on June 28, 2021. If mediation is unsuccessful, it is expected that Plaintiff will re-file her class and collective action claims in a subsequent action. At this stage in the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding.
On October 13, 2020, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Hope Gofton and Adam Kimbrel, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.: 2:20-cv-04886 on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs purport to bring a collective action for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and a class action for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. §§ 333.101, et seq., based upon the defendant’s purported failure to pay federal and state overtime wages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant improperly classified as exempt the plaintiffs and other putative collective and class members, and allegedly failed to pay overtime wages. The plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, costs and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. On April 22, 2021, the parties reached a preliminary settlement of the case. The Court approved the preliminary settlement on June 22, 2021 and scheduled a final fairness hearing for September 30, 2021. We believe that this matter is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
On August 23, 2019, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint, as amended, brought in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Maurcus Smith, Alvin Hodge and David Kortright, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.: 8:19-cv-02068-CEH-CPT. The plaintiffs purport to bring claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of consumers/applicants who were the subject of consumer reports used for employment purposes for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended, (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. based upon the defendant’s purported failure to provide stand-alone FCRA disclosures and obtain valid authorizations. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorney’s fees and other relief under the FCRA. On February 10, 2020, the parties reached a preliminary settlement of the case. The Court entered a Final Approval Order on June 28, 2021 approving the settlement agreement and dismissing the action with prejudice. We believe that this matter is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
We are involved in other legal proceedings, claims and administrative matters from time to time, and may also be exposed to loss contingencies, that arise in the ordinary course of business. We have made accruals with respect to certain of these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements. While the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined and any amounts accrued are inherently uncertain estimates, we currently do not expect that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position.
Equity Method Investment
Under the joint venture operating agreement for WorkLLama, Kforce is obligated to make additional cash contributions, which are contingent on WorkLLama's achievement of certain operational and financial milestones. Our maximum potential capital contributions are $22.5 million. The original operating and financial milestones established in the joint venture operating agreement were not achieved, in part, due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on WorkLLama’s business. We have continued to provide capital contributions to the joint venture due to our belief in the long-term value of the joint venture. We contributed $4.5 million and $4.0 million of capital during the six months ended June 30, 2021 and the year ended December 31, 2020, respectively. Refer to Note F - “Other Assets, Net” for more details on WorkLLama.