Legal and Environmental Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 December 31, 2017, the Company had accruals for all of its legal and environmental matters aggregating $1,597. We cannot estimate the aggregate possible range of loss due to most proceedings, including those described below, 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 has been named as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to safeguard customer credit card information and failed to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. Jonathan Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Torres Case”). The operative complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers, or in the alternative, statewide classes of consumers for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee, as well as statewide classes of consumers under those states’ consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws. Certain financial institutions have also filed class actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “FI Cases”), which seek to certify a nationwide class of financial institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly impacted. In the Torres Case and the FI Cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company filed its answer in both cases in 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the operative complaint in the Torres Case. On December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in that case moved for class certification. The Company filed its memorandum in opposition on January 16, 2018. Both motions are pending before the court. Certain of the Company’s present and former directors have been named in two putative shareholder derivative complaints arising out of the credit card incidents above. The first case, brought by James Graham in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Graham Case”), asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement, and additionally names one non-director executive officer of the Company. The second case, brought by Thomas Caracci in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Caracci Case”), asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek a judgment on behalf of the Company for all damages incurred or that will be incurred as a result of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions, a judgment ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the named individual defendants, a judgment directing the Company to reform its governance and internal procedures, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Graham Case and the Caracci Case have been consolidated and are pending the Court’s ruling on lead plaintiff and counsel, following which the Company expects that a consolidated complaint will be filed.

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 December 31, 2017, the Company had accruals for all of its legal and environmental matters aggregating $1,597. We cannot estimate the aggregate possible range of loss due to most proceedings, including those described below, 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 has been named as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to safeguard customer credit card information and failed to provide notice that credit card information had been compromised. Jonathan Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Torres Case”). The operative complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers, or in the alternative, statewide classes of consumers for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee, as well as statewide classes of consumers under those states’ consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws. Certain financial institutions have also filed class actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “FI Cases”), which seek to certify a nationwide class of financial institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly impacted. In the Torres Case and the FI Cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company filed its answer in both cases in 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the operative complaint in the Torres Case. On December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in that case moved for class certification. The Company filed its memorandum in opposition on January 16, 2018. Both motions are pending before the court.

Certain of the Company’s present and former directors have been named in two putative shareholder derivative complaints arising out of the credit card incidents above. The first case, brought by James Graham in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Graham Case”), asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement, and additionally names one non-director executive officer of the Company. The second case, brought by Thomas Caracci in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Caracci Case”), asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek a judgment on behalf of the Company for all damages incurred or that will be incurred as a result of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions, a judgment ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the named individual defendants, a judgment directing the Company to reform its governance and internal procedures, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Graham Case and the Caracci Case have been consolidated and are pending the Court’s ruling on lead plaintiff and counsel, following which the Company expects that a consolidated complaint will be filed.