1 unchanged sentence
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.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company who resided in California were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” in California, as well as performing activities related to the interview process.
+Added: The class period runs from March 13, 2010, to present.
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.
−Removed: 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 Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).
+Added: 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 and civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defined by California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys 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.
3 unchanged sentences
and (3) a subclass of class members who are no longer employed by the Company (i.e., a “waiting time penalties” subclass).
+Added: The first phase of the trial in the case on the issue of liability as to the Plaintiff and the class commenced on November 3, 2025.
+Added: Closing arguments were delivered on January 23, 2026, at which hearing the court requested further legal briefs to be delivered February 13, 2026.
+Added: The Court is permitting Robert Half to file a motion for decertification.
+Added: The timing of a liability ruling is not expected until after a case management conference on March 19, 2026.
+Added: If the Court’s order on the liability phase finds in favor of Plaintiff on any of her claims, the case will move on to a second phase of the trial regarding damages later this year.
+Added: This phase will have its own discovery and its own separate trial.
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.
5 unchanged sentences
alleged failure to pay wages on a timely basis both during employment and upon separation;
−Removed: alleged failure to comply with California requirements
−Removed: regarding wage statements and record-keeping;
+Added: 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.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: At this stage of the litigation, it is not
+Added: 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.
5 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.