CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Feb. 02, 2019
Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	CONTINGENCIES The Company is a defendant in lawsuits and other adversary proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company’s legal costs incurred in connection with the resolution of claims and lawsuits are generally expensed as incurred, and the Company establishes estimated liabilities for the outcome of litigation where losses are deemed probable and the amount of loss, or range of loss, is reasonably estimable. The Company also determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that a loss is reasonably possible and it is able to determine such estimates. Based on currently available information, the Company cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of the accrued charges for legal contingencies. In addition, the Company has not established accruals for certain claims and legal proceedings pending against the Company where it is not possible to reasonably estimate the outcome or potential liability, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for these legal matters. Actual liabilities may differ from the amounts recorded, due to uncertainties regarding final settlement agreement negotiations, court approvals and the terms of any approval by the courts, and there can be no assurance that final resolution of legal matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s assessment of the current exposure could change in the event of the discovery of additional facts. Certain legal matters The Company was a defendant in two separate class action lawsuits filed by former associates of the Company who are represented by the same counsel. The first lawsuit, filed in 2013, alleged failure to indemnify business expenses and a series of derivative claims for compelled patronization, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, minimum wage violations and unfair competition under California state law on behalf of all non-exempt hourly associates at Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie kids, Hollister and Gilly Hicks stores in California. Four subclasses of associates were certified, and the matter was before a U.S. District Court in California. The second lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleged that associates were required to purchase uniforms without reimbursement in violation of federal law, and laws of the states of New York, Florida and Massachusetts, as well as derivative putative state law claims and sought to pursue such claims on a class and collective basis. On December 12, 2017, a U.S. District Court in California granted the parties’ stipulation to transfer and combine the first-filed lawsuit with the second-filed lawsuit then pending before a U.S. District Court in Ohio. Both matters were mediated and the parties signed a settlement with a maximum potential payment of $25.0 million subject to a claim process. On February 16, 2018, a U.S. District Court in Ohio granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed settlement be given to the absent members of the settlement class. On November 7, 2018, the U.S. District Court in Ohio granted final approval of the proposed settlement, which resulted in a full and final settlement of all claims in both lawsuits on a class-wide basis for an ultimate settlement amount of approximately $10.1 million, which was paid by the Company in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2018, based on the actual claims made by members of the class. In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company was a defendant in certain other class action lawsuits filed by former associates of the Company. These lawsuits, assigned to the same judge in a U.S. District Court in California, alleged non-exempt hourly associates of the Company were not properly compensated, in violation of federal and California law, for call-in practices requiring associates to engage in certain pre-shift activities in order to determine whether they should report to work and the Company’s alleged failure to pay reporting time pay and all wages earned at termination. In addition, these lawsuits included derivative claims alleging inaccurate wage statements and unfair competition under California state law on behalf of non-exempt hourly associates. One of these lawsuits was mediated and the parties involved have signed a $9.6 million settlement agreement, which was preliminarily approved by a U.S. District Court in California. On November 20, 2018, the U.S. District Court in California granted final approval of the proposed settlement, which resulted in a full and final settlement of all claims made therein for an ultimate settlement amount of $9.6 million, which was paid by the Company in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2018. Other For Fiscal 2016, the Company recognized a $12.3 million gain in other operating income, net in connection with a settlement of certain economic loss claims associated with the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

CONTINGENCIES

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits and other adversary proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company’s legal costs incurred in connection with the resolution of claims and lawsuits are generally expensed as incurred, and the Company establishes estimated liabilities for the outcome of litigation where losses are deemed probable and the amount of loss, or range of loss, is reasonably estimable. The Company also determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that a loss is reasonably possible and it is able to determine such estimates. Based on currently available information, the Company cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of the accrued charges for legal contingencies. In addition, the Company has not established accruals for certain claims and legal proceedings pending against the Company where it is not possible to reasonably estimate the outcome or potential liability, and cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for these legal matters.

Actual liabilities may differ from the amounts recorded, due to uncertainties regarding final settlement agreement negotiations, court approvals and the terms of any approval by the courts, and there can be no assurance that final resolution of legal matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s assessment of the current exposure could change in the event of the discovery of additional facts.

Certain legal matters

The Company was a defendant in two separate class action lawsuits filed by former associates of the Company who are represented by the same counsel. The first lawsuit, filed in 2013, alleged failure to indemnify business expenses and a series of derivative claims for compelled patronization, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, minimum wage violations and unfair competition under California state law on behalf of all non-exempt hourly associates at Abercrombie & Fitch, abercrombie kids, Hollister and Gilly Hicks stores in California. Four subclasses of associates were certified, and the matter was before a U.S. District Court in California. The second lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleged that associates were required to purchase uniforms without reimbursement in violation of federal law, and laws of the states of New York, Florida and Massachusetts, as well as derivative putative state law claims and sought to pursue such claims on a class and collective basis. On December 12, 2017, a U.S. District Court in California granted the parties’ stipulation to transfer and combine the first-filed lawsuit with the second-filed lawsuit then pending before a U.S. District Court in Ohio. Both matters were mediated and the parties signed a settlement with a maximum potential payment of $25.0 million subject to a claim process. On February 16, 2018, a U.S. District Court in Ohio granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed settlement be given to the absent members of the settlement class. On November 7, 2018, the U.S. District Court in Ohio granted final approval of the proposed settlement, which resulted in a full and final settlement of all claims in both lawsuits on a class-wide basis for an ultimate settlement amount of approximately $10.1 million, which was paid by the Company in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2018, based on the actual claims made by members of the class.

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company was a defendant in certain other class action lawsuits filed by former associates of the Company. These lawsuits, assigned to the same judge in a U.S. District Court in California, alleged non-exempt hourly associates of the Company were not properly compensated, in violation of federal and California law, for call-in practices requiring associates to engage in certain pre-shift activities in order to determine whether they should report to work and the Company’s alleged failure to pay reporting time pay and all wages earned at termination. In addition, these lawsuits included derivative claims alleging inaccurate wage statements and unfair competition under California state law on behalf of non-exempt hourly associates. One of these lawsuits was mediated and the parties involved have signed a $9.6 million settlement agreement, which was preliminarily approved by a U.S. District Court in California. On November 20, 2018, the U.S. District Court in California granted final approval of the proposed settlement, which resulted in a full and final settlement of all claims made therein for an ultimate settlement amount of $9.6 million, which was paid by the Company in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2018.

Other

For Fiscal 2016, the Company recognized a $12.3 million gain in other operating income, net in connection with a settlement of certain economic loss claims associated with the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.