Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 25, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Obligations As of June 25, 2013, the Company guaranteed operating leases of 25 franchisee or affiliate locations, which the Company accounted for in accordance with the accounting requirements for guarantees. These guarantees are primarily a result of the sale of bakery-cafes to franchisees and affiliates where the Company has exercised its right to assign the lease or sublease the bakery-cafe but remains liable to the landlord for the remaining lease term in the event of a default by the assignee. These leases have terms expiring on various dates from July 31, 2013 to September 30, 2027 and a potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $21.9 million as of June 25, 2013. The obligations under these leases will decrease over time as these operating leases expire. The Company has not recorded a liability for certain of these guarantees as they arose prior to the implementation of the accounting requirements for guarantees and, unless modified, are exempt from its requirements. The Company has not recorded a liability for those guarantees issued after the effective date of the accounting requirements because the fair value of each such lease guarantee was determined by the Company to be insignificant based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each such lease and each such assignee's performance, and the Company did not believe it was probable it would be required to perform under any guarantees at the time the guarantees were issued. The Company has not had to make any payments related to any of these guaranteed leases. Applicable assignees continue to have primary liability for these operating leases. Legal Proceedings On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa. On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed by David Carter, which is described in the subsequent paragraph. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the parties agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were preliminarily approved by the Court on June 8, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the Court approved the terms and conditions of the settlement and the settlement payment amounts, and on February 5, 2013, the Court approved plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The Company maintained a reserve of $3.7 million in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 25, 2012 and paid the settlement amount of $3.7 million during the thirteen weeks ended June 25, 2013. On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company, and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. This matter, as it relates to the subsidiary, was consolidated with the lawsuit described in the immediately preceding paragraph and was resolved under the Memorandum of Agreement described above. In addition to the legal matters described above, the Company is subject to other routine legal proceedings, claims, and litigation in the ordinary course of its business. Defending lawsuits requires significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation, including the matters described above, is inherently uncertain. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements. Other The Company is subject to on-going federal and state income tax audits and sales and use tax audits. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these audits, or one or more audits under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Obligations

As of June 25, 2013, the Company guaranteed operating leases of 25 franchisee or affiliate locations, which the Company accounted for in accordance with the accounting requirements for guarantees. These guarantees are primarily a result of the sale of bakery-cafes to franchisees and affiliates where the Company has exercised its right to assign the lease or sublease the bakery-cafe but remains liable to the landlord for the remaining lease term in the event of a default by the assignee. These leases have terms expiring on various dates from July 31, 2013 to September 30, 2027 and a potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $21.9 million as of June 25, 2013. The obligations under these leases will decrease over time as these operating leases expire. The Company has not recorded a liability for certain of these guarantees as they arose prior to the implementation of the accounting requirements for guarantees and, unless modified, are exempt from its requirements. The Company has not recorded a liability for those guarantees issued after the effective date of the accounting requirements because the fair value of each such lease guarantee was determined by the Company to be insignificant based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each such lease and each such assignee's performance, and the Company did not believe it was probable it would be required to perform under any guarantees at the time the guarantees were issued. The Company has not had to make any payments related to any of these guaranteed leases. Applicable assignees continue to have primary liability for these operating leases.

Legal Proceedings

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa. On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed by David Carter, which is described in the subsequent paragraph. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the parties agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were preliminarily approved by the Court on June 8, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the Court approved the terms and conditions of the settlement and the settlement payment amounts, and on February 5, 2013, the Court approved plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The Company maintained a reserve of $3.7 million in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 25, 2012 and paid the settlement amount of $3.7 million during the thirteen weeks ended June 25, 2013.

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company, and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be appropriate. This matter, as it relates to the subsidiary, was consolidated with the lawsuit described in the immediately preceding paragraph and was resolved under the Memorandum of Agreement described above.

In addition to the legal matters described above, the Company is subject to other routine legal proceedings, claims, and litigation in the ordinary course of its business. Defending lawsuits requires significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation, including the matters described above, is inherently uncertain. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements.

Other

The Company is subject to on-going federal and state income tax audits and sales and use tax audits. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these audits, or one or more audits under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements.