Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	19. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Real estate obligations, which include legally binding minimum lease payments for leases executed but not yet commenced were $224.0 million as of December 29, 2019. In addition to its lease obligations, the Company maintains certain purchase commitments with various vendors to ensure its operational needs are fulfilled. As of December 29, 2019, total future purchase commitments were $13.9 million. Commitments related to the Company’s business operations cover varying periods of time and are not individually significant. These commitments are expected to be fulfilled with no adverse consequences to the Company’s operations or financial conditions. Contingencies The Company is exposed to claims and litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of business and uses various methods to resolve these matters that are believed to best serve the interests of the Company’s stakeholders. The Company’s primary contingencies are associated with self-insurance obligations and litigation matters. Self-insurance liabilities require significant judgments and actual claim settlements and associated expenses may differ from the Company’s current provisions for loss. See Note 15, “Self-Insurance Programs” for more information. Securities Action On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company’s common stock in its underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the “March 2015 Offering”). The complaint purported to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint sought damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. On August 4, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle these claims. The parties’ settlement agreement was approved by the court on May 31, 2019 and the complaint was subsequently dismissed. The settlement was funded from the Company’s directors and officers liability insurance policy and did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements. “Phishing” Scam Actions In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of the Company’s current and former team members whose personally identifiable information (“PII”) was inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that perpetrated an email “phishing” scam against one of the Company’s team members. The complaints alleged the Company failed to properly safeguard the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints sought damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not subject to the Company’s arbitration agreement and attempted to pursue those team members’ claims in federal court. In late August 2019, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the majority of these claims, which were funded in the fourth quarter of 2019. Primary funding for the settlement came from the Company’s cyber insurance policy, and the settlement did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements. A small group of four (4) individual claimants will proceed with arbitration of their claims. The Company intends to defend the arbitrations vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, the arbitrations. Proposition 65 Coffee Action On April 13, 2010, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against nearly 80 defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell brewed coffee, including the Company. CERT alleged that the defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. CERT seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers of coffee products, as well as civil penalties. The Company, as part of a joint defense group, asserted multiple defenses against the lawsuit. On May 7, 2018, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on these defenses to liability. On June 15, 2018, before the court tried damages, remedies and attorneys' fees, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) published a proposal to amend Proposition 65’s implementing regulations by adding a stand-alone sentence that reads as follows: “Exposures to listed chemicals in coffee created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.” The proposed regulation has been finalized with an effective date of October 1, 2019. The defendants have amended their answers to assert the regulation as an affirmative defense. On March 23, 2020, the trial court will hear cross-motions for summary judgment on the affirmative defense. If the court determines that the regulation applies to this case, and rejects CERT’s challenges to the validity of the regulation, the case will be dismissed. If the court determines that the regulation does not apply to this case, or upholds one or more of CERT’s challenges, then the court will set the case for trial of the remaining issues – civil penalties and injunctive relief. At this stage of the proceedings, prior to a trial on the remedies issues, the Company is unable to predict or reasonably estimate the potential loss or effect on the Company or its operations. Accordingly, no loss contingency was recorded for this matter.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 29, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

19. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Real estate obligations, which include legally binding minimum lease payments for leases executed but not yet commenced were $224.0 million as of December 29, 2019.

In addition to its lease obligations, the Company maintains certain purchase commitments with various vendors to ensure its operational needs are fulfilled. As of December 29, 2019, total future purchase commitments were $13.9 million.

Commitments related to the Company’s business operations cover varying periods of time and are not individually significant. These commitments are expected to be fulfilled with no adverse consequences to the Company’s operations or financial conditions.

Contingencies

The Company is exposed to claims and litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of business and uses various methods to resolve these matters that are believed to best serve the interests of the Company’s stakeholders. The Company’s primary contingencies are associated with self-insurance obligations and litigation matters. Self-insurance liabilities require significant judgments and actual claim settlements and associated expenses may differ from the Company’s current provisions for loss. See Note 15, “Self-Insurance Programs” for more information.

Securities Action

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company’s common stock in its underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the “March 2015 Offering”). The complaint purported to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint sought damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. On August 4, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle these claims. The parties’ settlement agreement was approved by the court on May 31, 2019 and the complaint was subsequently dismissed. The settlement was funded from the Company’s directors and officers liability insurance policy and did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

“Phishing” Scam Actions

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of the Company’s current and former team members whose personally identifiable information (“PII”) was inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that perpetrated an email “phishing” scam against one of the Company’s team members. The complaints alleged the Company failed to properly safeguard the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints sought damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not subject to the Company’s arbitration agreement and attempted to pursue those team members’ claims in federal court. In late August 2019, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the majority of these claims, which were funded in the fourth quarter of 2019. Primary funding for the settlement came from the Company’s cyber insurance policy, and the settlement did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements. A small group of four (4) individual claimants will proceed with arbitration of their claims. The Company intends to defend the arbitrations vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, the arbitrations.

Proposition 65 Coffee Action

On April 13, 2010, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“CERT”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against nearly 80 defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell brewed coffee, including the Company. CERT alleged that the defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. CERT seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers of coffee products, as well as civil penalties.

The Company, as part of a joint defense group, asserted multiple defenses against the lawsuit. On May 7, 2018, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on these defenses to liability. On June 15, 2018, before the court tried damages, remedies and attorneys' fees, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) published a proposal to amend Proposition 65’s implementing regulations by adding a stand-alone sentence that reads as follows: “Exposures to listed chemicals in coffee created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.” The proposed regulation has been finalized with an effective date of October 1, 2019. The defendants have amended their answers to assert the regulation as an affirmative defense.

On March 23, 2020, the trial court will hear cross-motions for summary judgment on the affirmative defense. If the court determines that the regulation applies to this case, and rejects CERT’s challenges to the validity of the regulation, the case will be dismissed. If the court determines that the regulation does not apply to this case, or upholds one or more of CERT’s challenges, then the court will set the case for trial of the remaining issues – civil penalties and injunctive relief.

At this stage of the proceedings, prior to a trial on the remedies issues, the Company is unable to predict or reasonably estimate the potential loss or effect on the Company or its operations. Accordingly, no loss contingency was recorded for this matter.