Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	12 Months Ended
Feb. 02, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	Legal Proceedings and Other Matters 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 to be between $1.7 million and $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 13 Legal Proceedings and Other Matters, Continued In April 2015, the Company received from EPA a Notice of Potential Liability and Demand for Costs (the "Notice") 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 has reimbursed the Company for 75% of the settlement amount, subject to a $500,000 self-insured retention. The Company does not expect any additional cost related to the matter. 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 $1.8 million as of February 2, 2019, $3.0 million as of February 3, 2018 and $4.4 million as of January 28, 2017. 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. 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 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 $0.7 million in Fiscal 2019, $0.6 million in Fiscal 2018 and $0.6 million in Fiscal 2017. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates. Other Legal 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 Note 13 Legal Proceedings and Other Matters, Continued 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 certain 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. A total of seven loss prevention investigators elected to join the suit at the expiration of the opt-in period. The Company has removed the case to federal court and the court has approved its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Effective February 2, 2019, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, dated December 14, 2018, by and among the Company, FanzzLids and certain other parties thereto 2018 (the “Purchase Agreement”), FanzzLids has agreed to assume the defense of the Shumate and Ward matters and to indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries for any losses incurred by them after the closing date resulting from such matters. 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 certain 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. On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the same subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151§1A, by failing to pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and seeking restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest, attorneys fees and costs. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the Chen and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys' fees and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus total payments to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate in the settlement of up to $0.8 million. The proposed settlement is subject to documentation and approval by the court. The Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. On April 30, 2015, an employee of a subsidiary of the Company 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. On April 17, 2018, the court issued a statement of decision in the first phase of the case, finding that the plaintiff is an "aggrieved employee" with regard to meal period and rest break claims only, and not with respect to any other violations alleged in the complaint and that she can represent other employees only with respect to meal and rest break claims. In light of a California Court of Appeal ruling on another matter in May 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision, which was denied. On December 13, 2018, plaintiff then filed a petition for peremptory writ of prohibition to the California Court of Appeal. The Company filed an opposition to plaintiff’s petition on January 11, 2019. On February 27, 2019, the Court of Appeal gave Note 13 Legal Proceedings and Other Matters, Continued notice that it intended to reverse the trial court’s decision. On March 8, 2019, the trial court amended its decision to permit plaintiff to proceed to trial on all of her claims, even though she was not personally aggrieved as to each of them. Effective February 2, 2019, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, FanzzLids has agreed to assume the defense of the Stewart matter and to indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries for any losses incurred by them after the closing date resulting from such 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. Other Matters Subsequent to the balance sheet date, the IRS notified the Company on Letter 226-J, that the Company may be liable for an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (“ESRP”) in the amount of $12.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The ESRP is applicable to employers that had 50 or more full-time equivalent employees, did not offer minimum essential coverage (“MEC”) to at least 95% of full-time employees (and their dependents) or did offer MEC to at least 95% of full time-employees (and their dependents), which did not meet the affordable or minimum value criteria and had one or more employees who claimed the Employee Premium Tax Credit (“PTC”) pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). The IRS determines which employers receive Letter 226-J and the amount of the proposed ESRP from information that the employers complete on their information returns (IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C) and from the income tax returns of their employees. Since the inception of the ACA, it has been the Company’s policy to offer MEC to all full-time employees and their dependents. Based upon a preliminary assessment, the Company believes that data was not transmitted to the IRS properly, however, the Company is still investigating the matter and intends to respond to the IRS on or before the May 1, 2019 deadline. Accordingly, the Company currently does not believe the ESRP set forth in Letter 226-J is a probable liability, and no accrual has been recorded at February 2, 2019.

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

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 to be between $1.7 million and $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 13

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters, Continued

In April 2015, the Company received from EPA a Notice of Potential Liability and Demand for Costs (the "Notice") 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 has reimbursed the Company for 75% of the settlement amount, subject to a $500,000 self-insured retention. The Company does not expect any additional cost related to the matter.

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 $1.8 million as of February 2, 2019, $3.0 million as of February 3, 2018 and $4.4 million as of January 28, 2017. 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. 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 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 $0.7 million in Fiscal 2019, $0.6 million in Fiscal 2018 and $0.6 million in Fiscal 2017. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates.

Other Legal 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

Note 13

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters, Continued

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 certain 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. A total of seven loss prevention investigators elected to join the suit at the expiration of the opt-in period. The Company has removed the case to federal court and the court has approved its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Effective February 2, 2019, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, dated December 14, 2018, by and among the Company, FanzzLids and certain other parties thereto 2018 (the “Purchase Agreement”), FanzzLids has agreed to assume the defense of the Shumate and Ward matters and to indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries for any losses incurred by them after the closing date resulting from such matters.

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 certain 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. On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the same subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151§1A, by failing to pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and seeking restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest, attorneys fees and costs. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the Chen and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys' fees and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus total payments to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate in the settlement of up to $0.8 million. The proposed settlement is subject to documentation and approval by the court. The Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

On April 30, 2015, an employee of a subsidiary of the Company 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. On April 17, 2018, the court issued a statement of decision in the first phase of the case, finding that the plaintiff is an "aggrieved employee" with regard to meal period and rest break claims only, and not with respect to any other violations alleged in the complaint and that she can represent other employees only with respect to meal and rest break claims. In light of a California Court of Appeal ruling on another matter in May 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision, which was denied. On December 13, 2018, plaintiff then filed a petition for peremptory writ of prohibition to the California Court of Appeal. The Company filed an opposition to plaintiff’s petition on January 11, 2019. On February 27, 2019, the Court of Appeal gave

Note 13

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters, Continued

notice that it intended to reverse the trial court’s decision. On March 8, 2019, the trial court amended its decision to permit plaintiff to proceed to trial on all of her claims, even though she was not personally aggrieved as to each of them. Effective February 2, 2019, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, FanzzLids has agreed to assume the defense of the Stewart matter and to indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries for any losses incurred by them after the closing date resulting from such 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.

Other Matters

Subsequent to the balance sheet date, the IRS notified the Company on Letter 226-J, that the Company may be liable for an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (“ESRP”) in the amount of $12.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. The ESRP is applicable to employers that had 50 or more full-time equivalent employees, did not offer minimum essential coverage (“MEC”) to at least 95% of full-time employees (and their dependents) or did offer MEC to at least 95% of full time-employees (and their dependents), which did not meet the affordable or minimum value criteria and had one or more employees who claimed the Employee Premium Tax Credit (“PTC”) pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). The IRS determines which employers receive Letter 226-J and the amount of the proposed ESRP from information that the employers complete on their information returns (IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C) and from the income tax returns of their employees. Since the inception of the ACA, it has been the Company’s policy to offer MEC to all full-time employees and their dependents. Based upon a preliminary assessment, the Company believes that data was not transmitted to the IRS properly, however, the Company is still investigating the matter and intends to respond to the IRS on or before the May 1, 2019 deadline. Accordingly, the Company currently does not believe the ESRP set forth in Letter 226-J is a probable liability, and no accrual has been recorded at February 2, 2019.