Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 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 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 California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“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 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. In May 2021, the Company entered into an amendment to extend the maturity of its $100.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Credit Agreement”) to May 2024. Borrowings under the Credit Agreement will bear interest in accordance with the terms of the borrowing, which typically will be calculated according to the London Interbank Offered Rate or an alternative base rate, plus an applicable margin. The Credit Agreement is subject to certain financial covenants and the Company was in compliance with these covenants as of September 30, 2022. There were no borrowings under the Credit Agreement as of September 30, 2022, or December 31, 2021.

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 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 California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“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 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.