Legal and Environmental Matters	12 Months Ended
Jan. 01, 2017
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Legal and Environmental Matters	Legal and Environmental Matters We are involved in litigation and claims incidental to our current and prior businesses. We provide accruals for such litigation and claims when payment is probable and reasonably estimable. As of January 1, 2017, the Company had accruals for all of its legal and environmental matters aggregating $1,227. We cannot estimate the aggregate possible range of loss due to most proceedings being in preliminary stages, with various motions either yet to be submitted or pending, discovery yet to occur, and significant factual matters unresolved. In addition, most cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages and many involve multiple parties. Predicting the outcomes of settlement discussions or judicial or arbitral decisions is thus inherently difficult. Based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to us, and given the aforementioned accruals and our insurance coverage, we do not believe that the outcome of these legal and environmental matters will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. The Company was named as a defendant in a civil complaint that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 8, 2016 by plaintiff Jonathan Torres. The complaint asserted claims of breach of implied contract, negligence and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from the Company’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. The complaint sought certification of a putative nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, without prejudice, on July 15, 2016. An amended complaint was filed in the same court by plaintiff Jonathan Torres and six additional named plaintiffs on July 29, 2016. The amended complaint names the Company’s subsidiary, Wendy’s International, LLC (“Wendy’s International”), as the defendant and asserts claims of breach of implied contract, negligence and violations of state consumer protection or deceptive trade practices statutes in the states of Florida, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas arising from Wendy’s International’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. The amended complaint also asserts violations of state data breach statutes in Florida, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas based on Wendy’s International’s alleged failure to timely and fully disclose the alleged data breach. The amended complaint seeks certification of a putative nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged failures, or in the alternative, statewide classes for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending before the court. The Company was named as a defendant in a civil complaint that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 25, 2016 by plaintiff First Choice Federal Credit Union. The complaint asserts claims of common law negligence, negligence per se due to the alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. All of these claims are based on the allegations arising from the Company’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. The complaint sought certification of a putative nationwide class of banks, credit unions, financial institutions and other entities in the United States impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company was named as a defendant in four other civil complaints filed by financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on the allegations arising from the Company’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. These cases were consolidated into the First Choice Federal Credit Union case. An amended civil complaint was filed in the consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 22, 2016 naming the Company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants. The amended complaint was brought by 22 financial institutions and five association plaintiffs (representing members who are credit unions and other similar financial institutions). The amended complaint asserts claims of common law negligence, negligence per se due to the alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The amended complaint also seeks certification of a putative nationwide class of banks, credit unions, financial institutions and other entities in the United States impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending before the court. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to each of the actions described above and intends to vigorously oppose the claims asserted in each of the complaints. Certain of the Company’s present and former directors, and one non-director executive officer of the Company, were named as defendants in a putative shareholder derivative complaint that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on December 16, 2016 by plaintiff James Graham. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement arising out of the credit card incidents described above. The plaintiff seeks an accounting for all damages incurred or that will be incurred as a result of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions, a judgment directing the Company to reform its governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

Legal and Environmental Matters

We are involved in litigation and claims incidental to our current and prior businesses. We provide accruals for such litigation and claims when payment is probable and reasonably estimable. As of January 1, 2017, the Company had accruals for all of its legal and environmental matters aggregating $1,227. We cannot estimate the aggregate possible range of loss due to most proceedings being in preliminary stages, with various motions either yet to be submitted or pending, discovery yet to occur, and significant factual matters unresolved. In addition, most cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages and many involve multiple parties. Predicting the outcomes of settlement discussions or judicial or arbitral decisions is thus inherently difficult. Based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to us, and given the aforementioned accruals and our insurance coverage, we do not believe that the outcome of these legal and environmental matters will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company was named as a defendant in a civil complaint that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 8, 2016 by plaintiff Jonathan Torres. The complaint asserted claims of breach of implied contract, negligence and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from the Company’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. The complaint sought certification of a putative nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, without prejudice, on July 15, 2016.

An amended complaint was filed in the same court by plaintiff Jonathan Torres and six additional named plaintiffs on July 29, 2016. The amended complaint names the Company’s subsidiary, Wendy’s International, LLC (“Wendy’s International”), as the defendant and asserts claims of breach of implied contract, negligence and violations of state consumer protection or deceptive trade practices statutes in the states of Florida, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas arising from Wendy’s International’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. The amended complaint also asserts violations of state data breach statutes in Florida, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas based on Wendy’s International’s alleged failure to timely and fully disclose the alleged data breach. The amended complaint seeks certification of a putative nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged failures, or in the alternative, statewide classes for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending before the court.

The Company was named as a defendant in a civil complaint that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 25, 2016 by plaintiff First Choice Federal Credit Union. The complaint asserts claims of common law negligence, negligence per se due to the alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. All of these claims are based on the allegations arising from the Company’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. The complaint sought certification of a putative nationwide class of banks, credit unions, financial institutions and other entities in the United States impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

The Company was named as a defendant in four other civil complaints filed by financial institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on the allegations arising from the Company’s alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. These cases were consolidated into the First Choice Federal Credit Union case.

An amended civil complaint was filed in the consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 22, 2016 naming the Company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants. The amended complaint was brought by 22 financial institutions and five association plaintiffs (representing members who are credit unions and other similar financial institutions). The amended complaint asserts claims of common law negligence, negligence per se due to the alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The amended complaint also seeks certification of a putative nationwide class of banks, credit unions, financial institutions and other entities in the United States impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending before the court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to each of the actions described above and intends to vigorously oppose the claims asserted in each of the complaints.

Certain of the Company’s present and former directors, and one non-director executive officer of the Company, were named as defendants in a putative shareholder derivative complaint that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on December 16, 2016 by plaintiff James Graham. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement arising out of the credit card incidents described above. The plaintiff seeks an accounting for all damages incurred or that will be incurred as a result of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions, a judgment directing the Company to reform its governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and other costs.