Litigation and Other Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Other Contingencies	Litigation and Other Contingencies Cintas is subject to legal proceedings, insurance receipts, legal settlements and claims arising from the ordinary course of its business, including personal injury, customer contract, environmental and employment claims. In the opinion of management, the aggregate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary course of business actions will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows of Cintas. Cintas is party to additional litigation not considered in the ordinary course of business, including the litigation discussed below. Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court denied Cintas’ Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court’s November 9, 2012 decision. Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos). On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits. Following denial of class certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately. In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case after the denial of class certification. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 30, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification. The litigation discussed above, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition, consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows and could increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating to these proceedings is not determinable at this time. Cintas may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.

Litigation and Other Contingencies

Cintas is subject to legal proceedings, insurance receipts, legal settlements and claims arising from the ordinary course of its business, including personal injury, customer contract, environmental and employment claims. In the opinion of management, the aggregate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary course of business actions will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows of Cintas. Cintas is party to additional litigation not considered in the ordinary course of business, including the litigation discussed below.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court denied Cintas’ Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court’s November 9, 2012 decision.

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos). On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits. Following denial of class certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately. In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case after the denial of class certification. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 30, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification.

The litigation discussed above, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition, consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows and could increase costs of operations on an ongoing basis. Any estimated liability relating to these proceedings is not determinable at this time. Cintas may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.