Legal and Environmental Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 30, 2018
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Legal and Environmental Matters	Legal and Environmental Matters The Company is 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. We believe we have adequate accruals for continuing operations for all of our legal and environmental matters, including the accrual that we recorded for the legal proceedings related to a cybersecurity incident as described below. See Note 11 for further information on the accrual. We cannot estimate the aggregate possible range of loss for various reasons, including, but not limited to, many proceedings being in preliminary stages, with various motions either yet to be submitted or pending, discovery yet to occur and/or 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 and future developments could cause these actions or claims, individually or in aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of a particular reporting period. 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 in connection with the cybersecurity incidents described herein. 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. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company filed its answer in 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the operative complaint. On December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Company filed its memorandum in opposition on January 16, 2018. On August 23, 2018, the court preliminarily approved a class-wide settlement. The claims and objection process is currently underway. A final approval hearing of the settlement of the Torres Case was held on February 26, 2019, and final approval was granted by the court. Certain financial institutions have also filed class actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which seek to certify a nationwide class of financial institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly impacted. Those cases were consolidated into a single case (the “FI Case”). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company filed its answer in 2017. On August 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ negligence and negligence per se claims under Ohio law. On February 13, 2019, the Company and the plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement and a motion for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement of the FI Case with the court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if approved and finalized, a settlement class of financial institutions will receive $50,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs. After exhaustion of applicable insurance, the Company expects to pay approximately $27,500 of this amount. In exchange, the Company and its franchisees will receive a full release of all claims that have or could have been brought by financial institutions who do not opt out of the settlement related to the cybersecurity incidents described herein. On February 26, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and scheduled a final approval hearing for November 6, 2019. The settlement agreement remains subject to a notice and objection process and final court approval. If approved, the Company anticipates that payment will not occur until late 2019 or early 2020. Accordingly, we recorded a liability of $50,000 and insurance receivables of $22,500 during 2018. See Note 11 for further information. Certain of the Company’s present and former directors have been named in two putative shareholder derivative complaints arising out of the cybersecurity incidents described herein. 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 on December 21, 2018, the court issued an order naming Graham and his counsel as lead in the case. On January 31, 2019, Graham filed a consolidated verified shareholder derivative complaint with the court.

Legal and Environmental Matters

The Company is 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. We believe we have adequate accruals for continuing operations for all of our legal and environmental matters, including the accrual that we recorded for the legal proceedings related to a cybersecurity incident as described below. See Note 11 for further information on the accrual. We cannot estimate the aggregate possible range of loss for various reasons, including, but not limited to, many proceedings being in preliminary stages, with various motions either yet to be submitted or pending, discovery yet to occur and/or 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 and future developments could cause these actions or claims, individually or in aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of a particular reporting period.

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 in connection with the cybersecurity incidents described herein. 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. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company filed its answer in 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the operative complaint. On December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Company filed its memorandum in opposition on January 16, 2018. On August 23, 2018, the court preliminarily approved a class-wide settlement. The claims and objection process is currently underway. A final approval hearing of the settlement of the Torres Case was held on February 26, 2019, and final approval was granted by the court.

Certain financial institutions have also filed class actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which seek to certify a nationwide class of financial institutions that issued payment cards that were allegedly impacted. Those cases were consolidated into a single case (the “FI Case”). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and other costs. The Company filed its answer in 2017. On August 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ negligence and negligence per se claims under Ohio law. On February 13, 2019, the Company and the plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement and a motion for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement of the FI Case with the court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if approved and finalized, a settlement class of financial institutions will receive $50,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs. After exhaustion of applicable insurance, the Company expects to pay approximately $27,500 of this amount. In exchange, the Company and its franchisees will receive a full release of all claims that have or could have been brought by financial institutions who do not opt out of the settlement related to the cybersecurity incidents described herein. On February 26, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and scheduled a final approval hearing for November 6, 2019. The settlement agreement remains subject to a notice and objection process and final court approval. If approved, the Company anticipates that payment will not occur until late 2019 or early 2020. Accordingly, we recorded a liability of $50,000 and insurance receivables of $22,500 during 2018. See Note 11 for further information.

Certain of the Company’s present and former directors have been named in two putative shareholder derivative complaints arising out of the cybersecurity incidents described herein. 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 on December 21, 2018, the court issued an order naming Graham and his counsel as lead in the case. On January 31, 2019, Graham filed a consolidated verified shareholder derivative complaint with the court.