Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jan. 30, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments—At January 30, 2021 and February 1, 2020, we had outstanding purchase orders to acquire merchandise from vendors of $262.6 million and $212.5 million, respectively. We have an option to cancel these commitments with no notice prior to shipment, except for certain private label, packaging supplies and international purchase orders in which we are obligated to repay contractual amounts upon cancellation. Litigation—We are involved from time to time in claims, proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We have made accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. For some matters, the amount of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. We may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if we believe settlement is in the best interest of our shareholders. A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against us alleges, among other things, various violations of California’s wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 we moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff’s cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not “report for work” with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff’s claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. Our opening appellate brief was filed in June 2018 and the plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed in August 2018. Our reply brief to the Plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed in September 2018 and oral arguments were completed in February 2019. On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted our motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff’s supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We then filed our supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff’s supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court. On April 2, 2020 we filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to our petition for rehearing en banc. We in turn filed a reply in support of our petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc. The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento for further proceedings. The court has tentatively scheduled plaintiff’s deadline for filing a motion for class certification on April 15, 2021, and Defendant’s tentative deadline to file an opposition to the motion on June 15, 2021. Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. Insurance Reserves—We use a combination of third-party insurance and self-insurance for a number of risk management activities including workers’ compensation, general liability and employee-related health care benefits. We maintain reserves for our self-insured losses, which are estimated based on actuarial based analysis of historical claims experience. The self-insurance reserve for fiscal years ended January 30, 2021 and February 1, 2020 was $1.8 million and $1.9.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jan. 30, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments—At January 30, 2021 and February 1, 2020, we had outstanding purchase orders to acquire merchandise from vendors of $262.6 million and $212.5 million, respectively. We have an option to cancel these commitments with no notice prior to shipment, except for certain private label, packaging supplies and international purchase orders in which we are obligated to repay contractual amounts upon cancellation.

Litigation—We are involved from time to time in claims, proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We have made accruals with respect to these matters, where appropriate, which are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. For some matters, the amount of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. We may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if we believe settlement is in the best interest of our shareholders.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against us alleges, among other things, various violations of California’s wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 we moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff’s cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not “report for work” with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff’s claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. Our opening appellate brief was filed in June 2018 and the plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed in August 2018. Our reply brief to the Plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed in September 2018 and oral arguments were completed in February 2019. On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted our motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff’s supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We then filed our supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff’s supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court’s denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court. On April 2, 2020 we filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to our petition for rehearing en banc. We in turn filed a reply in support of our petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied our petition for rehearing en banc. The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento for further proceedings. The court has tentatively scheduled plaintiff’s deadline for filing a motion for class certification on April 15, 2021, and Defendant’s tentative deadline to file an opposition to the motion on June 15, 2021. Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.

Insurance Reserves—We use a combination of third-party insurance and self-insurance for a number of risk management activities including workers’ compensation, general liability and employee-related health care benefits. We maintain reserves for our self-insured losses, which are estimated based on actuarial based analysis of historical claims experience. The self-insurance reserve for fiscal years ended January 30, 2021 and February 1, 2020 was $1.8 million and $1.9.