LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Aug. 01, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9: LEGAL CONTINGENCIES In July 2008, a lawsuit styled Jessica Chapman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other female assistant store managers were paid less than comparable males and seeks compensable damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking collective action. On or about March 15, 2013, the judge in the matter issued a Report and Recommendation that the case be conditionally certified as a collective action, which the District Court Judge affirmed. As a result, notice of a collective action was sent to the appropriate class as required by the Court. One hundred ninety four plaintiffs opted into the suit, and approximately one hundred seventy plaintiffs currently remain in the suit. Although, the Company believes that all of its assistant managers were always properly paid and that the matter was not appropriate for collective action treatment, the Company and its insurance company participated in mediation with the plaintiffs. On March 26, 2015, the plaintiffs, their counsel, the Company and the Company’s insurance carrier reached a tentative agreement whereby the case would be settled for a total of $315,000, and the plaintiffs would be bound by the terms of a settlement agreement, and the case dismissed with prejudice. The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. As stated above, the EPLI carrier participated in the resolution of the suit. The settlement agreement has been signed, and the parties are working towards the final distribution of the settlement proceeds. The Court has been notified of the settlement and that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. On August 10, 2015, following an investigation by a third-party cyber-security firm, the Company reported that there had been unauthorized access to two Company servers through which payment card data is routed. The investigation uncovered malware on the two servers beginning on March 23, 2015, and that malware operated on one server until April 8 and on the other server until April 24. The malware was designed to search only for “track 2” data—data from the magnetic stripe of payment cards that contains only the card number, expiration date and verification code. During this time period, track 2 data was at risk of disclosure; however, the third-party cyber-security firm did not find evidence that track 2 data was removed from the Company’s system. No other customer information was involved. The malware has been removed from the Company’s system, and the Company has implemented and is continuing to implement enhanced security measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the costs or a range of costs related to this incident; however, costs related to the incident may have a material adverse effect on the Company. Costs may include liabilities to payment card networks for reimbursement of payment card fraud and reissuance costs, liabilities from current and future civil litigation, governmental investigations and enforcement proceedings, as well as legal and investigative costs. The Company has cyber-security risk insurance, which may offset some of these costs. In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is party to several pending legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcome of the proceedings and claims cannot be determined with certainty, management of the Company is of the opinion that these proceedings and claims should not have a material adverse effect on the financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims, individually or in aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the financial statements as a whole.

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Aug. 01, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 9: LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

In July 2008, a lawsuit styled Jessica Chapman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other female assistant store managers were paid less than comparable males and seeks compensable damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking collective action. On or about March 15, 2013, the judge in the matter issued a Report and Recommendation that the case be conditionally certified as a collective action, which the District Court Judge affirmed. As a result, notice of a collective action was sent to the appropriate class as required by the Court. One hundred ninety four plaintiffs opted into the suit, and approximately one hundred seventy plaintiffs currently remain in the suit. Although, the Company believes that all of its assistant managers were always properly paid and that the matter was not appropriate for collective action treatment, the Company and its insurance company participated in mediation with the plaintiffs. On March 26, 2015, the plaintiffs, their counsel, the Company and the Company’s insurance carrier reached a tentative agreement whereby the case would be settled for a total of $315,000, and the plaintiffs would be bound by the terms of a settlement agreement, and the case dismissed with prejudice. The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. As stated above, the EPLI carrier participated in the resolution of the suit. The settlement agreement has been signed, and the parties are working towards the final distribution of the settlement proceeds. The Court has been notified of the settlement and that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

On August 10, 2015, following an investigation by a third-party cyber-security firm, the Company reported that there had been unauthorized access to two Company servers through which payment card data is routed. The investigation uncovered malware on the two servers beginning on March 23, 2015, and that malware operated on one server until April 8 and on the other server until April 24. The malware was designed to search only for “track 2” data—data from the magnetic stripe of payment cards that contains only the card number, expiration date and verification code. During this time period, track 2 data was at risk of disclosure; however, the third-party cyber-security firm did not find evidence that track 2 data was removed from the Company’s system. No other customer information was involved. The malware has been removed from the Company’s system, and the Company has implemented and is continuing to implement enhanced security measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future. At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the costs or a range of costs related to this incident; however, costs related to the incident may have a material adverse effect on the Company. Costs may include liabilities to payment card networks for reimbursement of payment card fraud and reissuance costs, liabilities from current and future civil litigation, governmental investigations and enforcement proceedings, as well as legal and investigative costs. The Company has cyber-security risk insurance, which may offset some of these costs.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is party to several pending legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcome of the proceedings and claims cannot be determined with certainty, management of the Company is of the opinion that these proceedings and claims should not have a material adverse effect on the financial statements as a whole. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims, individually or in aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the financial statements as a whole.