Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Oct. 28, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Environmental Matters New York State Environmental Matters In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision specified a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-situ chemical oxidation. In September 2015, the EPA adopted an amendment to the Record of Decision eliminating the separate ground-water extraction and treatment systems and the use of in-situ oxidation from the remedy adopted in the Record of Decision. The amendment provides for the continued operation and maintenance of the existing wellhead treatment systems on wells operated by the Village of Garden City, New York (the "Village"). It also requires the Company to perform certain ongoing monitoring, operation and maintenance activities and to reimburse EPA's future oversight cost, involving future costs to the Company estimated at $1.7 million to $2.0 million, and to reimburse EPA for approximately $1.25 million of interim oversight costs. On August 15, 2016, the Court entered a Consent Judgment implementing the remedy provided for by the amendment. The Village additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical total costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimated at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint (the "Village Lawsuit") against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it. In June 2016, the Company and the Village reached an agreement providing for the Village to continue to operate and maintain the well head treatment systems in accordance with the Record of Decision and to release its claims against the Company asserted in the Village Lawsuit in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $10.0 million by the Company. On August 25, 2016, the Village Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The cost of the settlement with the Village and the estimated costs associated with the Company's compliance with the Consent Judgment were covered by the Company's existing provision for the site. The settlement with the Village did not have, and the Company expects that the Consent Judgment will not have, a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Note 8 Legal Proceedings, Continued In April 2015, the Company received from EPA a Notice of Potential Liability and Demand for Costs pursuant to CERCLA regarding the site in Gloversville, New York of a former leather tannery operated by the Company and by other, unrelated parties. The Notice demanded payment of approximately $2.2 million of response costs claimed by EPA to have been incurred to conduct assessments and removal activities at the site. In February 2017, the Company and EPA entered into a settlement agreement resolving EPA's claim for past response costs in exchange for a payment by the Company of $1.5 million which was paid in May 2017. The Company's environmental insurance carrier reimbursed the Company for 75% of the settlement amount, subject to a $500,000 self-insured retention. The Company does not expect that the matter will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Whitehall Environmental Matters The Company has performed sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater and waste management areas at the Company's former Volunteer Leather Company facility in Whitehall, Michigan. In October 2010, the Company and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment entered into a Consent Decree providing for implementation of a remedial Work Plan for the facility site designed to bring the site into compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The Work Plan's implementation is substantially complete and the Company expects, based on its present understanding of the condition of the site, that its future obligations with respect to the site will be limited to periodic monitoring and that future costs related to the site should not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Accrual for Environmental Contingencies Related to all outstanding environmental contingencies, the Company had accrued $2.9 million as of October 28, 2017, $4.4 million as of January 28, 2017 and $3.9 million as of October 29, 2016. All such provisions reflect the Company's estimates of the most likely cost (undiscounted, including both current and noncurrent portions) of resolving the contingencies, based on facts and circumstances as of the time they were made. The Company paid $10.0 million of the accrued total at July 30, 2016 in August 2016. There is no assurance that relevant facts and circumstances will not change, necessitating future changes to the provisions. Such contingent liabilities are included in the liability arising from provision for discontinued operations on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because it relates to former facilities operated by the Company. The Company has made pretax accruals for certain of these contingencies, including approximately $0.1 million reflected in each of the third quarters of Fiscal 2018 and 2017, and $0.4 million and $0.2 million reflected in the first nine months of Fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates. Note 8 Legal Proceedings, Continued Other Matters On February 22, 2017, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company filed a putative class and collective action, Shumate v. Genesco, Inc., et al., in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio wages and hours law including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to the subsidiary's store managers and seeking back pay, damages, penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 21, 2017, a former employee of the same subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Ward v. Hat World, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State of Washington, alleging violations of the FLSA and Washington wages and hours laws, including, among others, failure to pay overtime to certain loss prevention investigators, and seeking back pay, damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company has removed the action to U.S. District Court. On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the same subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Chen and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the FLSA and Illinois and New York wages and hours laws, including, among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers, and also seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company disputes the material allegations in these complaints and intends to defend the matters. On April 30, 2015, an employee of the same subsidiary filed an action, Stewart v. Hat World, Inc., et al., under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of herself, the State of California, and other non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of the subsidiary in California, seeking unspecified damages and penalties for various alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage and overtime violations, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to provide full reimbursement of business-related costs and expenses incurred in the course of employment. The Company disputes the material allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the matter. In addition to the matters specifically described in this Note, the Company is a party to other legal and regulatory proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. While management does not believe that the Company's liability with respect to any of these other matters is likely to have a material effect on its financial statements, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial statements.

Legal Proceedings

Environmental Matters

New York State Environmental Matters

In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision specified a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-situ chemical oxidation.

In September 2015, the EPA adopted an amendment to the Record of Decision eliminating the separate ground-water extraction and treatment systems and the use of in-situ oxidation from the remedy adopted in the Record of Decision. The amendment provides for the continued operation and maintenance of the existing wellhead treatment systems on wells operated by the Village of Garden City, New York (the "Village"). It also requires the Company to perform certain ongoing monitoring, operation and maintenance activities and to reimburse EPA's future oversight cost, involving future costs to the Company estimated at $1.7 million to $2.0 million, and to reimburse EPA for approximately $1.25 million of interim oversight costs. On August 15, 2016, the Court entered a Consent Judgment implementing the remedy provided for by the amendment.

The Village additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical total costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimated at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint (the "Village Lawsuit") against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it.

In June 2016, the Company and the Village reached an agreement providing for the Village to continue to operate and maintain the well head treatment systems in accordance with the Record of Decision and to release its claims against the Company asserted in the Village Lawsuit in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $10.0 million by the Company. On August 25, 2016, the Village Lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The cost of the settlement with the Village and the estimated costs associated with the Company's compliance with the Consent Judgment were covered by the Company's existing provision for the site. The settlement with the Village did not have, and the Company expects that the Consent Judgment will not have, a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Note 8

Legal Proceedings, Continued

In April 2015, the Company received from EPA a Notice of Potential Liability and Demand for Costs pursuant to CERCLA regarding the site in Gloversville, New York of a former leather tannery operated by the Company and by other, unrelated parties. The Notice demanded payment of approximately $2.2 million of response costs claimed by EPA to have been incurred to conduct assessments and removal activities at the site. In February 2017, the Company and EPA entered into a settlement agreement resolving EPA's claim for past response costs in exchange for a payment by the Company of $1.5 million which was paid in May 2017. The Company's environmental insurance carrier reimbursed the Company for 75% of the settlement amount, subject to a $500,000 self-insured retention. The Company does not expect that the matter will have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Whitehall Environmental Matters

The Company has performed sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater and waste management areas at the Company's former Volunteer Leather Company facility in Whitehall, Michigan.

In October 2010, the Company and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment entered into a Consent Decree providing for implementation of a remedial Work Plan for the facility site designed to bring the site into compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The Work Plan's implementation is substantially complete and the Company expects, based on its present understanding of the condition of the site, that its future obligations with respect to the site will be limited to periodic monitoring and that future costs related to the site should not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Accrual for Environmental Contingencies

Related to all outstanding environmental contingencies, the Company had accrued $2.9 million as of October 28, 2017, $4.4 million as of January 28, 2017 and $3.9 million as of October 29, 2016. All such provisions reflect the Company's estimates of the most likely cost (undiscounted, including both current and noncurrent portions) of resolving the contingencies, based on facts and circumstances as of the time they were made. The Company paid $10.0 million of the accrued total at July 30, 2016 in August 2016. There is no assurance that relevant facts and circumstances will not change, necessitating future changes to the provisions. Such contingent liabilities are included in the liability arising from provision for discontinued operations on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because it relates to former facilities operated by the Company. The Company has made pretax accruals for certain of these contingencies, including approximately $0.1 million reflected in each of the third quarters of Fiscal 2018 and 2017, and $0.4 million and $0.2 million reflected in the first nine months of Fiscal 2018 and 2017, respectively. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates.

Note 8

Legal Proceedings, Continued

Other Matters

On February 22, 2017, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company filed a putative class and collective action, Shumate v. Genesco, Inc., et al., in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio wages and hours law including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to the subsidiary's store managers and seeking back pay, damages, penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 21, 2017, a former employee of the same subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Ward v. Hat World, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State of Washington, alleging violations of the FLSA and Washington wages and hours laws, including, among others, failure to pay overtime to certain loss prevention investigators, and seeking back pay, damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company has removed the action to U.S. District Court. On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the same subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Chen and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the FLSA and Illinois and New York wages and hours laws, including, among others, failure to pay overtime to store managers, and also seeking back pay, damages, statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company disputes the material allegations in these complaints and intends to defend the matters.

On April 30, 2015, an employee of the same subsidiary filed an action, Stewart v. Hat World, Inc., et al., under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of herself, the State of California, and other non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of the subsidiary in California, seeking unspecified damages and penalties for various alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage and overtime violations, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to provide full reimbursement of business-related costs and expenses incurred in the course of employment. The Company disputes the material allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the matter.

In addition to the matters specifically described in this Note, the Company is a party to other legal and regulatory proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. While management does not believe that the Company's liability with respect to any of these other matters is likely to have a material effect on its financial statements, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial statements.