Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 21, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies Lease Guarantees As a result of having (a) assigned our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company restaurants; (b) contributed certain Company restaurants to former unconsolidated affiliates; and (c) guaranteed certain other leases, we are frequently contingently liable on lease agreements. These leases have varying terms, the latest of which expires in 2065. As of March 21, 2015, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $625 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 21, 2015 was approximately $550 million. Our franchisees are the primary lessees under the vast majority of these leases. We generally have cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreement in the event of non-payment under the lease. We believe these cross-default provisions significantly reduce the risk that we will be required to make payments under these leases. Accordingly, the liability recorded for our probable exposure under such leases as of March 21, 2015 was not material. Other Franchise Guarantees We have provided guarantees of $27 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were $75 million as of March 21, 2015. Legal Proceedings We are subject to various claims and contingencies related to lawsuits, real estate, environmental and other matters arising in the normal course of business. An accrual is recorded with respect to claims or contingencies for which a loss is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable. In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s current and future business and financial condition. The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the “Class Period”). The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company’s business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company’s supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company’s securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On December 24, 2014, the District Court granted that motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing on plaintiff’s appeal is scheduled to be complete by the end of April 2015. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On January 24, 2013, Bert Bauman, a purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a letter demanding that the Board of Directors initiate an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by directors, officers and employees of the Company. The breaches of fiduciary duties are alleged to have arisen primarily as a result of the failure to implement proper controls in connection with the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations. Subsequently, similar demand letters by other purported shareholders were submitted. Those letters were referred to a special committee of the Board of Directors (the “Special Committee”) for consideration. The Special Committee, upon conclusion of an independent inquiry of the matters described in the letters, unanimously determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims described in the letters and, accordingly, rejected each shareholder’s demand. On May 9, 2013, Mr. Bauman filed a putative derivative action in Jefferson Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with an alleged failure to implement proper controls in the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations and with an alleged scheme to mislead investors about the Company’s growth prospects in China. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On February 14, 2013, Jennifer Zona, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On May 21, 2013, Ms. Zona filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge that the securities class action is before. On October 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of the Special Committee’s findings. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On May 17, 2013, Sandra Wollman, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On December 9, 2013, Ms. Wollman filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman and Ms. Zona. By agreement of the parties, the matter was consolidated with the Zona action and is temporarily stayed pending the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory “waiting time” penalties and allege violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss all but one of the California Private Attorney General Act claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s legal theory as to her discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties’ cross-summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff’s motion. Discovery will continue as to plaintiff’s remaining claims. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut’s pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2011, the court granted Pizza Hut’s motion with respect to plaintiffs’ state law claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the court granted plaintiffs’ motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in. On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the collective action, along with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with Pizza Hut. On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to settle this matter. Pursuant to the parties’ original agreement, one issue, the mileage of an average round trip, remained outstanding and was to be submitted for arbitration. The parties have instead negotiated a final settlement, inclusive of that issue and without any contingencies. The court approved the settlement on March 26, 2015. The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and the associated cash payments will not be material. We are engaged in various other legal proceedings and have certain unresolved claims pending, the ultimate liability for which, if any, cannot be determined at this time. However, based upon consultation with legal counsel, we are of the opinion that such proceedings and claims are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Guarantees

As a result of having (a) assigned our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company restaurants; (b) contributed certain Company restaurants to former unconsolidated affiliates; and (c) guaranteed certain other leases, we are frequently contingently liable on lease agreements. These leases have varying terms, the latest of which expires in 2065. As of March 21, 2015, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $625 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 21, 2015 was approximately $550 million. Our franchisees are the primary lessees under the vast majority of these leases. We generally have cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreement in the event of non-payment under the lease. We believe these cross-default provisions significantly reduce the risk that we will be required to make payments under these leases. Accordingly, the liability recorded for our probable exposure under such leases as of March 21, 2015 was not material.

Other Franchise Guarantees

We have provided guarantees of $27 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were $75 million as of March 21, 2015.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various claims and contingencies related to lawsuits, real estate, environmental and other matters arising in the normal course of business. An accrual is recorded with respect to claims or contingencies for which a loss is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s current and future business and financial condition. The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company’s stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the “Class Period”). The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company’s business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company’s supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the Company’s securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On December 24, 2014, the District Court granted that motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing on plaintiff’s appeal is scheduled to be complete by the end of April 2015. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On January 24, 2013, Bert Bauman, a purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a letter demanding that the Board of Directors initiate an investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by directors, officers and employees of the Company. The breaches of fiduciary duties are alleged to have arisen primarily as a result of the failure to implement proper controls in connection with the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations. Subsequently, similar demand letters by other purported shareholders were submitted. Those letters were referred to a special committee of the Board of Directors (the “Special Committee”) for consideration. The Special Committee, upon conclusion of an independent inquiry of the matters described in the letters, unanimously determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims described in the letters and, accordingly, rejected each shareholder’s demand.

On May 9, 2013, Mr. Bauman filed a putative derivative action in Jefferson Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with an alleged failure to implement proper controls in the Company’s purchases of poultry from suppliers to the Company’s China operations and with an alleged scheme to mislead investors about the Company’s growth prospects in China. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On February 14, 2013, Jennifer Zona, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On May 21, 2013, Ms. Zona filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge that the securities class action is before. On October 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of the Special Committee’s findings. By agreement of the parties, the matter is temporarily stayed pending the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On May 17, 2013, Sandra Wollman, another purported shareholder of the Company, submitted a demand letter similar to the demand letters described above. On December 9, 2013, Ms. Wollman filed a putative derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company asserting claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Bauman and Ms. Zona. By agreement of the parties, the matter was consolidated with the Zona action and is temporarily stayed pending the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory “waiting time” penalties and allege violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties’ stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss all but one of the California Private Attorney General Act claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements cannot be made at this time.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case described above. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff’s legal theory as to her discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties’ cross-summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell’s motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff’s motion. Discovery will continue as to plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut’s pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. In August 2010, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2011, the court granted Pizza Hut’s motion with respect to plaintiffs’ state law claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the court granted plaintiffs’ motion in April 2012. The opt-in period closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in. On February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the collective action, along with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with Pizza Hut.

On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to settle this matter. Pursuant to the parties’ original agreement, one issue, the mileage of an average round trip, remained outstanding and was to be submitted for arbitration. The parties have instead negotiated a final settlement, inclusive of that issue and without any contingencies. The court approved the settlement on March 26, 2015. The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and the associated cash payments will not be material.

We are engaged in various other legal proceedings and have certain unresolved claims pending, the ultimate liability for which, if any, cannot be determined at this time. However, based upon consultation with legal counsel, we are of the opinion that such proceedings and claims are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.