Contingencies and Commitments	3 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Commitments	Contingencies and Commitments The company is a party to various pending legal proceedings, claims and environmental actions by government agencies. The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. Any provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and are adjusted to reflect the impact and status of settlements, rulings, advice of counsel and other information pertinent to the particular matter. Aris – This is a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint alleges unfair labor practices due to the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc. (Aris), a former subsidiary of the company. The complaint names the company as a party defendant. In 2006, the arbitrator ruled against the company and awarded the plaintiffs approximately $80 million in damages and fees. This ruling was appealed by the company and subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Both the complainants and the company have filed motions for reconsideration. The company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit; however, it is reasonably possible that this case will be ruled against the company and have a material adverse impact on the company's results of operations and cash flows. The company has initiated settlement discussions for this case and has established an accrual for the estimated settlement amount. Multi-Employer Pension Plans – The company participates in one multi-employer pension plan (MEPP) that provided retirement benefits to certain employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. Participating employers in a MEPP are jointly responsible for any plan underfunding. MEPP contributions are established by the applicable collective bargaining agreements; however, the MEPPs may impose increased contribution rates and surcharges based on the funded status of the plan and the provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). The PPA imposes minimum funding requirements on the plans. Plans that fail to meet certain funding standards as defined by the PPA are categorized as being either in a critical or endangered status. We have received notice that the plan to which we contribute has been designated in critical status. The trustees of critical status multi-employer plans must adopt a rehabilitation or funding improvement plan designed to improve the plan's funding within a prescribed period of time. Rehabilitation and funding improvement plans may include increased employer contributions, reductions in benefits or a combination of the two. Unless otherwise agreed upon, any requirement to increase employer contributions will not take effect until the current collective bargaining agreements expire. However, a five percent surcharge for the initial critical year (increasing to ten percent for the following and subsequent years) is imposed on contributions to plans in critical status and remains in effect until the bargaining parties agree on modifications consistent with the rehabilitation plan adopted by the trustees. In addition, the failure of a plan to meet funding improvement targets provided in its rehabilitation or funding improvement plan could result in the imposition of an excise tax on contributing employers. Under current law regarding multi-employer pension plans, a withdrawal or partial withdrawal from any plan that was underfunded would render us liable for our proportionate share of that underfunding. This potential unfunded pension liability also applies ratably to other contributing employers. Information regarding underfunding is generally not provided by plan administrators and trustees on a current basis and when provided, is difficult to independently validate. Any public information available relative to multi-employer pension plans may be dated as well. In the event of a withdrawal or partial withdrawal was to occur with respect to the MEPP to which the company makes contributions, the impact to our consolidated financial statements could be material. Withdrawal liability triggers could include the company's decision to close a plant or the dissolution of a collective bargaining unit. The company's regularly scheduled contributions to MEPPs related to continuing operations are expected to be approximately $2 million in 2014, and totaled approximately $1 million in 2013. Guarantees The company is a party to a variety of agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify a third party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise as a result of contracts entered into by the company under which the company agrees to indemnify a third party against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to matters such as title to assets sold, the collectibility of receivables, specified environmental matters, lease obligations assumed and certain tax matters. In each of these circumstances, payment by the company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the contract. These procedures allow the company to challenge the other party's claims. In addition, the company's obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some cases the company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the company. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under certain agreements, due to the conditional nature of the company's obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the company under these agreements have not had a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations. The company believes that if it were to incur a loss in any of these matters, such loss would not have a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations. The material guarantees for which the maximum potential amount of future payments can be determined, are as follows: Contingent Lease Obligations – The company is contingently liable for leases on property operated by others. At September 28, 2013, the maximum potential amount of future payments the company could be required to make, if all of the current operators default on the rental arrangements, is $16 million. The minimum annual rentals under these leases are $7 million in 2014, $8 million in 2015 and $1 million in 2016. The largest components of these amounts relate to a number of retail store leases operated by Coach, Inc. Coach, Inc. is contractually obligated to provide the company, on an annual basis, with a standby letter of credit which, at a minimum, is equal to the next year's rental obligations. The letter of credit in place at the close of 2013 was $7 million. This obligation to provide a letter of credit expires when the company's contingent lease obligation is substantially extinguished. The company has not recognized a liability for the contingent obligation on the Coach, Inc. leases. Contingent Debt Obligations and Other – The company has guaranteed the payment of certain third-party debt. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the company could be required to make, in the event that these third parties default on their debt obligations, is $16 million. At the present time, the company does not believe it is probable that any of these third parties will default on the amount subject to guarantee.

Contingencies and Commitments

The company is a party to various pending legal proceedings, claims and environmental actions by government agencies. The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. Any provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and are adjusted to reflect the impact and status of settlements, rulings, advice of counsel and other information pertinent to the particular matter.

Aris – This is a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint alleges unfair labor practices due to the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc. (Aris), a former subsidiary of the company. The complaint names the company as a party defendant. In 2006, the arbitrator ruled against the company and awarded the plaintiffs approximately $80 million in damages and fees. This ruling was appealed by the company and subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Both the complainants and the company have filed motions for reconsideration. The company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit; however, it is reasonably possible that this case will be ruled against the company and have a material adverse impact on the company's results of operations and cash flows. The company has initiated settlement discussions for this case and has established an accrual for the estimated settlement amount.

Multi-Employer Pension Plans – The company participates in one multi-employer pension plan (MEPP) that provided retirement benefits to certain employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. Participating employers in a MEPP are jointly responsible for any plan underfunding. MEPP contributions are established by the applicable collective bargaining agreements; however, the MEPPs may impose increased contribution rates and surcharges based on the funded status of the plan and the provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). The PPA imposes minimum funding requirements on the plans. Plans that fail to meet certain funding standards as defined by the PPA are categorized as being either in a critical or endangered status. We have received notice that the plan to which we contribute has been designated in critical status. The trustees of critical status multi-employer plans must adopt a rehabilitation or funding improvement plan designed to improve the plan's funding within a prescribed period of time. Rehabilitation and funding improvement plans may include increased employer contributions, reductions in benefits or a combination of the two. Unless otherwise agreed upon, any requirement to increase employer contributions will not take effect until the current collective bargaining agreements expire. However, a five percent surcharge for the initial critical year (increasing to ten percent for the following and subsequent years) is imposed on contributions to plans in critical status and remains in effect until the bargaining parties agree on modifications consistent with the rehabilitation plan adopted by the trustees. In addition, the failure of a plan to meet funding improvement targets provided in its rehabilitation or funding improvement plan could result in the imposition of an excise tax on contributing employers.

Under current law regarding multi-employer pension plans, a withdrawal or partial withdrawal from any plan that was underfunded would render us liable for our proportionate share of that underfunding. This potential unfunded pension liability also applies ratably to other contributing employers. Information regarding underfunding is generally not provided by plan administrators and trustees on a current basis and when provided, is difficult to independently validate. Any public information available relative to multi-employer pension plans may be dated as well. In the event of a withdrawal or partial withdrawal was to occur with respect to the MEPP to which the company makes contributions, the impact to our consolidated financial statements could be material. Withdrawal liability triggers could include the company's decision to close a plant or the dissolution of a collective bargaining unit.

The company's regularly scheduled contributions to MEPPs related to continuing operations are expected to be approximately $2 million in 2014, and totaled approximately $1 million in 2013.

Guarantees

The company is a party to a variety of agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify a third party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise as a result of contracts entered into by the company under which the company agrees to indemnify a third party against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to matters such as title to assets sold, the collectibility of receivables, specified environmental matters, lease obligations assumed and certain tax matters. In each of these circumstances, payment by the company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the contract. These procedures allow the company to challenge the other party's claims. In addition, the company's obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some cases the company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the company. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under certain agreements, due to the conditional nature of the company's obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the company under these agreements have not had a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations. The company believes that if it were to incur a loss in any of these matters, such loss would not have a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

The material guarantees for which the maximum potential amount of future payments can be determined, are as follows:

Contingent Lease Obligations – The company is contingently liable for leases on property operated by others. At September 28, 2013, the maximum potential amount of future payments the company could be required to make, if all of the current operators default on the rental arrangements, is $16 million. The minimum annual rentals under these leases are $7 million in 2014, $8 million in 2015 and $1 million in 2016. The largest components of these amounts relate to a number of retail store leases operated by Coach, Inc. Coach, Inc. is contractually obligated to provide the company, on an annual basis, with a standby letter of credit which, at a minimum, is equal to the next year's rental obligations. The letter of credit in place at the close of 2013 was $7 million. This obligation to provide a letter of credit expires when the company's contingent lease obligation is substantially extinguished. The company has not recognized a liability for the contingent obligation on the Coach, Inc. leases.

Contingent Debt Obligations and Other – The company has guaranteed the payment of certain third-party debt. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the company could be required to make, in the event that these third parties default on their debt obligations, is $16 million. At the present time, the company does not believe it is probable that any of these third parties will default on the amount subject to guarantee.