Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	5. Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments—At July 31, 2021, we had outstanding purchase orders to acquire merchandise from vendors of $270.9 million. We have an option to cancel these commitments with no notice prior to shipment, except for certain private label 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 condensed 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 on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. Our reply brief to the Plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 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 parties held mediation with a private mediator on June 23, 2021. The parties reached a resolution in principle for all class claims, which will be subject to the court’s approval. We anticipate submitting the settlement for the court’s approval within 90 to 120 days. The estimated settlement of $2.8 million was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the condensed consolidated statement of income for the three months ended July 31, 2021. 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 historical claims experience and actuarial and other assumptions. The self-insurance reserve at July 31, 2021 and January 30, 2021 was $2.1 million and $1.8 million.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments—At July 31, 2021, we had outstanding purchase orders to acquire merchandise from vendors of $270.9 million. We have an option to cancel these commitments with no notice prior to shipment, except for certain private label 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 condensed 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 on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. Our reply brief to the Plaintiff’s answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 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 parties held mediation with a private mediator on June 23, 2021. The parties reached a resolution in principle for all class claims, which will be subject to the court’s approval. We anticipate submitting the settlement for the court’s approval within 90 to 120 days. The estimated settlement of $2.8 million was recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses on the condensed consolidated statement of income for the three months ended July 31, 2021.

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 historical claims experience and actuarial and other assumptions. The self-insurance reserve at July 31, 2021 and January 30, 2021 was $2.1 million and $1.8 million.