Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Warranty The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year, however in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.1 million as of June 28, 2015 and March 29, 2015. Litigation In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company ("Defendants"), alleging various environmental violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), and other common law claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleges that Defendants including the Company “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” The Complaint further alleges that Defendants are liable for the costs of investigation and remediation of the Property due to the release of hazardous substances, and that Defendants violated their duty to prevent the release of such hazardous substances. On August 15, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against the Company without prejudice. However, Moyer Products, Inc., another defendant, counter-claimed against the plaintiff Maxim and cross-claimed against Defendants, including the Company, and thus the Company remains a cross-defendant in this action. In September 2012, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company that it identified the Company, along with more than 50 other entities, as a respondent to DTSC's Enforcement Order, as “a generator of hazardous waste” that was sent to the Property. In April 2013, the Company, along with the other “respondent” parties, entered into a Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA) to conduct the Property investigation and corrective action selection. The CACA supersedes the Enforcement Order. In February 2013, the court stayed the Maxim/Moyer litigation pending the Property investigation under the CACA and DTSC's corrective action selection. On June 23, 2015, the Property investigation was deemed completed by DTSC. The DTSC continues to evaluate corrective action. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer upon notification from the DTSC of its corrective action selection. Because no specific corrective action has been selected yet, and thus no specific monetary demands have been made, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the potential loss or range of potential losses for these actions. The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. As of June 28, 2015, while the Company has accrued for specific amounts based on the probability of settlement in some of these matters, those amounts, both individually and in total, are not material to any aspect of business operations and to the consolidated financial statements. Further, with regard to these other matters, potential liability and probable losses or ranges of possible losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in any particular lawsuit. Accordingly, pending lawsuits, as well as potential future litigation with other companies, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty

The Company maintains an accrual for obligations it incurs under its standard product warranty program and customer, part, or process specific matters. The Company’s standard warranty period is one year, however in certain instances the warranty period may be extended to as long as two years. Management estimates the fair value of the Company’s warranty liability based on actual past warranty claims experience, its policies regarding customer warranty returns and other estimates about the timing and disposition of product returned under the standard program. Customer, part, or process specific accruals are estimated using a specific identification method. Historical profit and loss impact related to warranty returns activity has been minimal. The total warranty accrual was $0.1 million as of June 28, 2015 and March 29, 2015.

Litigation

In January 2012, Maxim I Properties, a general partnership that had purchased a certain parcel of real property (the Property) in 2003, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California naming approximately 30 defendants, including the Company ("Defendants"), alleging various environmental violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), and other common law claims (the Complaint). The Complaint alleges that Defendants including the Company “…generated, transported, and/or arranged for the transport and/or disposal of hazardous waste to the Property.” The Complaint further alleges that Defendants are liable for the costs of investigation and remediation of the Property due to the release of hazardous substances, and that Defendants violated their duty to prevent the release of such hazardous substances. On August 15, 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its Complaint against the Company without prejudice. However, Moyer Products, Inc., another defendant, counter-claimed against the plaintiff Maxim and cross-claimed against Defendants, including the Company, and thus the Company remains a cross-defendant in this action. In September 2012, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the Company that it identified the Company, along with more than 50 other entities, as a respondent to DTSC's Enforcement Order, as “a generator of hazardous waste” that was sent to the Property. In April 2013, the Company, along with the other “respondent” parties, entered into a Corrective Action Consent Agreement (CACA) to conduct the Property investigation and corrective action selection. The CACA supersedes the Enforcement Order. In February 2013, the court stayed the Maxim/Moyer litigation pending the Property investigation under the CACA and DTSC's corrective action selection. On June 23, 2015, the Property investigation was deemed completed by DTSC. The DTSC continues to evaluate corrective action. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the Complaint and evaluate settlement options with Moyer upon notification from the DTSC of its corrective action selection. Because no specific corrective action has been selected yet, and thus no specific monetary demands have been made, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the potential loss or range of potential losses for these actions.

The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. As of June 28, 2015, while the Company has accrued for specific amounts based on the probability of settlement in some of these matters, those amounts, both individually and in total, are not material to any aspect of business operations and to the consolidated financial statements. Further, with regard to these other matters, potential liability and probable losses or ranges of possible losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Generally, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the Company will prevail in any particular lawsuit. Accordingly, pending lawsuits, as well as potential future litigation with other companies, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.