ROBERT HALF INC

Management, including the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In accordance with this review, no material changes to controls and procedures were made in the three months ended March 31, 2024.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

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 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. On March 8, 2024, the Court issued an order certifying: (1) a class of California-based temporary employees who attended at least one uncompensated interview with a third-party client at any time since March 13, 2010; (2) a subclass of class members who held a prior temporary job assignment before interviewing for a subsequent assignment; and (3) a subclass of class members who are no longer employed by the Company (i.e., a “waiting time penalties” subclass). 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.

There have been no material developments with regard to any of the other legal proceedings previously disclosed in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.