Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 8. Contingencies Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class actions filed in April, 2011 by purported stockholders of LaBarge against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection with the LaBarge acquisition. Two of the stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives Barry P. Borodkin and Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14) were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, and the court consolidated those two actions. The other three stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives J. M. Foley, Jr., William Wheeler and Doris A. Gastineau) were filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and that court consolidated those three actions. The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class actions generally allege that the individual members of the Board of Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to LaBarge stockholders with respect to the merger transaction announced on April 4, 2011. These actions also allege that Ducommun and LaBarge aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. They seek equitable relief (including injunctive relief), judicial declarations that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of the LaBarge directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs. In the Delaware consolidated actions, the parties engaged in expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for June 17, 2011. After document discovery and depositions, and before the plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction, the parties negotiated and signed a memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims. The preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive agreement and final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Chancery Court will approve the settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation. In the Missouri consolidated actions, the defendants sought a stay of the Missouri actions from the Missouri court, the plaintiffs opposed that request, and the Missouri court stayed the actions. Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's stay, and the defendants opposed that request. On June 16, 2011, a hearing before the Missouri court was held on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On June 20, 2011, the Missouri court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the court's stay. Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit, and in the event that settlement of these claims is not finalized, intends to defend them vigorously. Ducommun is a defendant in a lawsuit entitled United States of America ex rel Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes v. The Boeing Company and Ducommun Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court"). The lawsuit is a qui tam action brought by three former Boeing employees ("Relators") against Boeing and Ducommun on behalf of the United States of America for violations of the United States False Claims Act. The lawsuit alleges that Ducommun sold unapproved parts to the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group-Wichita Division which were installed by Boeing in aircraft ultimately sold to the United States Government. The number of Boeing aircraft subject to the lawsuit has been reduced to 21 aircraft following the District Court's granting of partial summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Ducommun. The lawsuit seeks damages, civil penalties and other relief from the defendants for presenting or causing to be presented false claims for payment to the United States Government. Although the amount of alleged damages are not specified, the lawsuit seeks damages in an amount equal to three times the amount of damages the United States Government sustained because of the defendants' actions, plus a civil penalty of $10,000 for each false claim made on or before September 28, 1999, and $11,000 for each false claim made on or after September 28, 1999, together with attorneys' fees and costs. One of Relators' experts has opined that the United States Government's damages are in the amount of $833 million. After investigating the allegations, the United States Government has declined to intervene in the lawsuit. Ducommun intends to defend itself vigorously against the lawsuit. Ducommun, at this time, is unable to estimate what, if any, liability it may have in connection with the lawsuit. DAS has been directed by California environmental agencies to investigate and take corrective action for ground water contamination at its facilities located in El Mirage and Monrovia, California. Based on currently available information, the Company has established a reserve for its estimated liability for such investigation and corrective action in the approximate amount of $1,509,000. DAS also faces liability as a potentially responsible party for hazardous waste disposed at two landfills located in Casmalia and West Covina, California. DAS and other companies and government entities have entered into consent decrees with respect to each landfill with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and/or California environmental agencies under which certain investigation, remediation and maintenance activities are being performed. Based on currently available information, at the West Covina landfill the Company preliminarily estimates that the range of its liabilities in connection with the landfill is between approximately $900,000 and $3,300,000. The Company established a reserve for its estimated liability and has been making payments against this liability. The balance in the reserve included in the Company's liabilities, in connection with the West Covina landfill. was approximately $732,000 at October 1, 2011 The Company's ultimate liability in connection with these matters will depend upon a number of factors, including changes in existing laws and regulations, the design and cost of construction, operation and maintenance activities, and the allocation of liability among potentially responsible parties. In the normal course of business, Ducommun and its subsidiaries are defendants in certain other litigation, claims and inquiries, including matters relating to environmental laws. In addition, the Company makes various commitments and incurs contingent liabilities. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company does not presently expect that any sum it may be required to pay in connection with these matters would have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 8. Contingencies

Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class actions filed in April, 2011 by purported stockholders of LaBarge against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection with the LaBarge acquisition. Two of the stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives Barry P. Borodkin and Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14) were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, and the court consolidated those two actions. The other three stockholder actions (filed by purported class representatives J. M. Foley, Jr., William Wheeler and Doris A. Gastineau) were filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and that court consolidated those three actions. The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class actions generally allege that the individual members of the Board of Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to LaBarge stockholders with respect to the merger transaction announced on April 4, 2011. These actions also allege that Ducommun and LaBarge aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. They seek equitable relief (including injunctive relief), judicial declarations that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of the LaBarge directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs. In the Delaware consolidated actions, the parties engaged in expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for June 17, 2011. After document discovery and depositions, and before the plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction, the parties negotiated and signed a memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims. The preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive agreement and final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Chancery Court will approve the settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation.

In the Missouri consolidated actions, the defendants sought a stay of the Missouri actions from the Missouri court, the plaintiffs opposed that request, and the Missouri court stayed the actions. Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's stay, and the defendants opposed that request. On June 16, 2011, a hearing before the Missouri court was held on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On June 20, 2011, the Missouri court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the court's stay. Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit, and in the event that settlement of these claims is not finalized, intends to defend them vigorously.

Ducommun is a defendant in a lawsuit entitled United States of America ex rel Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes v. The Boeing Company and Ducommun Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court"). The lawsuit is a qui tam action brought by three former Boeing employees ("Relators") against Boeing and Ducommun on behalf of the United States of America for violations of the United States False Claims Act. The lawsuit alleges that Ducommun sold unapproved parts to the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group-Wichita Division which were installed by Boeing in aircraft ultimately sold to the United States Government. The number of Boeing aircraft subject to the lawsuit has been reduced to 21 aircraft following the District Court's granting of partial summary judgment in favor of Boeing and Ducommun. The lawsuit seeks damages, civil penalties and other relief from the defendants for presenting or causing to be presented false claims for payment to the United States Government. Although the amount of alleged damages are not specified, the lawsuit seeks damages in an amount equal to three times the amount of damages the United States Government sustained because of the defendants' actions, plus a civil penalty of $10,000 for each false claim made on or before September 28, 1999, and $11,000 for each false claim made on or after September 28, 1999, together with attorneys' fees and costs. One of Relators' experts has opined that the United States Government's damages are in the amount of $833 million. After investigating the allegations, the United States Government has declined to intervene in the lawsuit. Ducommun intends to defend itself vigorously against the lawsuit. Ducommun, at this time, is unable to estimate what, if any, liability it may have in connection with the lawsuit.

DAS has been directed by California environmental agencies to investigate and take corrective action for ground water contamination at its facilities located in El Mirage and Monrovia, California. Based on currently available information, the Company has established a reserve for its estimated liability for such investigation and corrective action in the approximate amount of $1,509,000. DAS also faces liability as a potentially responsible party for hazardous waste disposed at two landfills located in Casmalia and West Covina, California. DAS and other companies and government entities have entered into consent decrees with respect to each landfill with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and/or California environmental agencies under which certain investigation, remediation and maintenance activities are being performed. Based on currently available information, at the West Covina landfill the Company preliminarily estimates that the range of its liabilities in connection with the landfill is between approximately $900,000 and $3,300,000. The Company established a reserve for its estimated liability and has been making payments against this liability. The balance in the reserve included in the Company's liabilities, in connection with the West Covina landfill. was approximately $732,000 at October 1, 2011 The Company's ultimate liability in connection with these matters will depend upon a number of factors, including changes in existing laws and regulations, the design and cost of construction, operation and maintenance activities, and the allocation of liability among potentially responsible parties.

In the normal course of business, Ducommun and its subsidiaries are defendants in certain other litigation, claims and inquiries, including matters relating to environmental laws. In addition, the Company makes various commitments and incurs contingent liabilities. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company does not presently expect that any sum it may be required to pay in connection with these matters would have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.