Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Obligations As of June 28, 2016, the Company has guaranteed the operating leases of 90 franchisee locations, which the Company accounted for in accordance with the accounting requirements for guarantees. These guarantees are primarily a result of the Company's sales of Company-owned bakery-cafes to franchisees, pursuant to which the Company exercised its right to assign the lease for the bakery-cafe but remain 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 15, 2020 to February 28, 2049, with a maximum potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $284.1 million as of June 28, 2016. The obligations from these leases will decrease over time as these operating leases expire. The Company has not recorded a liability for these guarantees because the fair value of these lease guarantees was determined by the Company to be insignificant individually, and in the aggregate, 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 that 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 July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, 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 might find just and proper. In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based on similar claims and seeking similar damages were filed against the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager. On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are under negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final approval by two California Superior Courts. The Company maintained an appropriate reserve in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 28, 2016. In addition to the legal matter described above, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Defending lawsuits requires significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation, including the matter described above, is inherently uncertain. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. 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 ongoing 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 the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. The Company believes reserves for these matters are adequately provided for in its consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Obligations

As of June 28, 2016, the Company has guaranteed the operating leases of 90 franchisee locations, which the Company accounted for in accordance with the accounting requirements for guarantees. These guarantees are primarily a result of the Company's sales of Company-owned bakery-cafes to franchisees, pursuant to which the Company exercised its right to assign the lease for the bakery-cafe but remain 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 15, 2020 to February 28, 2049, with a maximum potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $284.1 million as of June 28, 2016. The obligations from these leases will decrease over time as these operating leases expire. The Company has not recorded a liability for these guarantees because the fair value of these lease guarantees was determined by the Company to be insignificant individually, and in the aggregate, 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 that 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 July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, 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 might find just and proper. In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based on similar claims and seeking similar damages were filed against the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager. On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of a definitive settlement agreement are under negotiation and such agreement is subject to the final approval by two California Superior Courts. The Company maintained an appropriate reserve in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 28, 2016.

In addition to the legal matter described above, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Defending lawsuits requires significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation, including the matter described above, is inherently uncertain. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. 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 ongoing 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 the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. The Company believes reserves for these matters are adequately provided for in its consolidated financial statements.