Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 19, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies	Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies Lease Guarantees As a result of having assigned our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company restaurants and guaranteeing 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 19, 2016, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $575 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 19, 2016 was approximately $475 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 agreements in the event of non-payment under the leases. 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 19, 2016 was not material. Other Franchise Guarantees We have provided guarantees of $21 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were $62 million as of March 19, 2016. 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. The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants 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 sought penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) as well as statutory “waiting time” penalties and alleged violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought 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, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. 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 opt out forms 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 PAGA 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. Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory “waiting time” penalty claim were tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory “waiting time” penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs’ Business & Professions Code §17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the §17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and intends to file a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. 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. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff sought 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. Trial was set for mid-April 2016. Plaintiff ceased to actively pursue this matter and failed to timely file the required pre-trial statement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a request to dismiss with prejudice all of her remaining claims, which the court approved on March 2, 2016. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal concerning the court’s summary judgment ruling. The Ninth Circuit has not yet set a briefing schedule. 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. 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 assigned our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company restaurants and guaranteeing 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 19, 2016, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessees was approximately $575 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at March 19, 2016 was approximately $475 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 agreements in the event of non-payment under the leases. 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 19, 2016 was not material.

Other Franchise Guarantees

We have provided guarantees of $21 million on behalf of franchisees for several financing programs related to specific initiatives. The total loans outstanding under these financing programs were $62 million as of March 19, 2016.

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.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants 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 sought penalties for alleged violations of California’s Labor Code under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) as well as statutory “waiting time” penalties and alleged violations of California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought 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, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. 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 opt out forms 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 PAGA 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.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory “waiting time” penalty claim were tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory “waiting time” penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs’ Business & Professions Code §17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the §17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and intends to file a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. 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.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff sought 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. Trial was set for mid-April 2016. Plaintiff ceased to actively pursue this matter and failed to timely file the required pre-trial statement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a request to dismiss with prejudice all of her remaining claims, which the court approved on March 2, 2016. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal concerning the court’s summary judgment ruling. The Ninth Circuit has not yet set a briefing schedule.

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.

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.