Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jan. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On May 21, May 22 and July 2, 2012, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and certain of our current and former outside directors and executive officers (Jeffrey Berger, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, Dennis Tishkoff, Robert Claxton, Joe Cooper, Steven Fishman, Charles Haubiel, Timothy Johnson, John Martin, Norman Rankin, Paul Schroeder, Robert Segal and Steven Smart). The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and seeks declaratory relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which was granted by the Court in an Opinion and Order dated April 14, 2015, pursuant to which plaintiffs’ claims were all dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of their claim for corporate waste, which was dismissed without prejudice. On May 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Verified Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint, which seeks to replead the claim for corporate waste that was dismissed without prejudice by the Court, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration and, in the Alternative, for Certification of Question of State Law to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Defendants’ responses to both motions were filed on May 29, 2015. On August 3, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Verified Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint, and Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on the same date, asserting a claim for corporate waste. On September 30, 2015, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. The case is currently in discovery. We received a letter dated January 28, 2013, sent on behalf of a shareholder demanding that our Board of Directors investigate and take action in connection with the allegations made in the derivative and securities lawsuits described above. The shareholder indicated that he would commence a derivative lawsuit if our Board of Directors failed to take the demanded action. On March 6, 2013, our Board of Directors referred the shareholder’s letter to a committee of independent directors to investigate the matter. That committee, with the assistance of independent outside counsel, investigated the allegations in the shareholder’s demand letter and, on August 28, 2013, reported its findings to our Board of Directors along with its recommendation that the Board reject the shareholder’s demand. Our Board of Directors unanimously accepted the recommendation of the demand investigation committee and, on September 9, 2013, outside counsel for the committee sent a letter to counsel for the shareholder informing the shareholder of the Board’s determination. On October 18, 2013, the shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and each of the current and former outside directors and executive officers named in the 2012 shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and misappropriation of trade secrets and seeks damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court in an Opinion and Order dated April 14, 2015, which dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice with the exception of his claim for corporate waste and his assertion that our Board of Directors wrongfully rejected his demand to take action against the individually named defendants. On May 5, 2015, the Court so ordered the parties’ stipulation, staying plaintiff’s time to seek leave to amend his complaint in order to make a request to inspect the Company’s books and records pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §1701.37, and plaintiff served that request for inspection on May 8, 2015. On August 17, 2015 plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint. On September 30, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. As of November 20, 2015 the motion was fully briefed and awaits decision. On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning our financial performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward. The case is entering the early stages of discovery. On February 10, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Columbus, Ohio, against us and certain of our current and former outside directors and executive officers (David Campisi, Steven Fishman, Joe Cooper, Charles Haubiel, Timothy Johnson, Robert Claxton, John Martin, Norman Rankin, Paul Schroeder, Robert Segal, Steven Smart, David Kollat, Jeffrey Berger, James Chambers, Peter Hayes, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, James Tener and Dennis Tishkoff). The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The complaint also alleges that we and various individual defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our Canadian operations prior to our announcement on December 5, 2013 that we were exiting the Canadian market. The complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and misappropriation of insider information and seeks damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. At the parties’ request, the court has stayed this lawsuit until after the judge in the federal lawsuits discussed in the preceding paragraphs has ruled on the motions to dismiss pending in all those federal lawsuits. We believe that the shareholder derivative and putative class action lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in these lawsuits. While a loss from these lawsuits is reasonably possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result or whether the lawsuits will have a material impact on our financial statements. On October 1, 2013, we received a subpoena from the District Attorney for the County of Alameda, State of California, seeking information concerning our handling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste in the State of California. We have provided information and are cooperating with the authorities from multiple counties and cities in California in connection with this ongoing matter. While a loss related to this matter is reasonably possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter or whether this matter will have a material impact on our financial statements. In October 2014, Big Lots received a notice of a second violation from the California Air Resources Board alleging that it sold certain products that contained volatile organic compounds in excess of regulated limits (windshield washer fluid). This matter is in its early stages and settlement discussions are continuing. We anticipate that any resolution of this matter is likely to exceed $100,000. In 2013, we sold certain tabletop torch and citronella products manufactured by a third party. In August 2013, we recalled these products and discontinued their sale in our stores. In 2014, we were named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits relating to these products alleging personal injuries suffered as a result of negligent shelving and pairing of the products, product design, manufacturing and marketing defects and/or breach of warranties. Although we believe that we are entitled to indemnification from the third party manufacturer of the products for all of the expenses that we have incurred (and may in the future incur) with respect to these matters and that these expenses are covered by our insurance (subject to a $1 million deductible), in the second quarter of 2015, we (1) determined that our ability to obtain any recovery from the manufacturer may be limited because, among other things, the manufacturer has exhausted its applicable insurance coverage, is domiciled outside the United States and has been dissolved by its parent and (2) became engaged in litigation with our excess insurance carrier regarding the scope of our coverage. In the second quarter of 2015, we settled one of the lawsuits and reached an agreement in principle to settle another lawsuit, which was later finalized in the third quarter of 2015. Two additional lawsuits remain pending against Big Lots in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, respectively. Both of the outstanding lawsuits are in the discovery phase. During the second quarter of 2015, we recorded a $4.5 million charge related to these matters. We are involved in other legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We currently believe that each such action and claim will be resolved without a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. We are self-insured for certain losses relating to property, general liability, workers' compensation, and employee medical, dental, and prescription drug benefit claims, a portion of which is paid by employees, and we have purchased stop-loss coverage in order to limit significant exposure in these areas. Accrued insurance liabilities are actuarially determined based on claims filed and estimates of claims incurred but not reported. We use letters of credit, which amounted to $55.0 million at January 30, 2016, as collateral to back certain of our self-insured losses with our claims administrators. We have purchase obligations for outstanding purchase orders for merchandise issued in the ordinary course of our business that are valued at $434.4 million, the entirety of which represents obligations due within one year of January 30, 2016. In addition, we have purchase commitments for future inventory purchases totaling $33.9 million at January 30, 2016. We paid $11.3 million, $16.8 million, and $21.7 million related to this commitment during 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively. We are not required to meet any periodic minimum purchase requirements under this commitment. The term of the commitment extends until the purchase requirement is satisfied. We have additional purchase obligations in the amount of $181.4 million primarily related to distribution and transportation, information technology, print advertising, energy procurement, and other store security, supply, and maintenance commitments.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On May 21, May 22 and July 2, 2012, three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and certain of our current and former outside directors and executive officers (Jeffrey Berger, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, Dennis Tishkoff, Robert Claxton, Joe Cooper, Steven Fishman, Charles Haubiel, Timothy Johnson, John Martin, Norman Rankin, Paul Schroeder, Robert Segal and Steven Smart). The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and seeks declaratory relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which was granted by the Court in an Opinion and Order dated April 14, 2015, pursuant to which plaintiffs’ claims were all dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of their claim for corporate waste, which was dismissed without prejudice. On May 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Verified Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint, which seeks to replead the claim for corporate waste that was dismissed without prejudice by the Court, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration and, in the Alternative, for Certification of Question of State Law to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Defendants’ responses to both motions were filed on May 29, 2015. On August 3, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Verified Consolidated Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint, and Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on the same date, asserting a claim for corporate waste. On September 30, 2015, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. The case is currently in discovery.

We received a letter dated January 28, 2013, sent on behalf of a shareholder demanding that our Board of Directors investigate and take action in connection with the allegations made in the derivative and securities lawsuits described above. The shareholder indicated that he would commence a derivative lawsuit if our Board of Directors failed to take the demanded action. On March 6, 2013, our Board of Directors referred the shareholder’s letter to a committee of independent directors to investigate the matter. That committee, with the assistance of independent outside counsel, investigated the allegations in the shareholder’s demand letter and, on August 28, 2013, reported its findings to our Board of Directors along with its recommendation that the Board reject the shareholder’s demand. Our Board of Directors unanimously accepted the recommendation of the demand investigation committee and, on September 9, 2013, outside counsel for the committee sent a letter to counsel for the shareholder informing the shareholder of the Board’s determination. On October 18, 2013, the shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against us and each of the current and former outside directors and executive officers named in the 2012 shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of

fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and misappropriation of trade secrets and seeks damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court in an Opinion and Order dated April 14, 2015, which dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice with the exception of his claim for corporate waste and his assertion that our Board of Directors wrongfully rejected his demand to take action against the individually named defendants. On May 5, 2015, the Court so ordered the parties’ stipulation, staying plaintiff’s time to seek leave to amend his complaint in order to make a request to inspect the Company’s books and records pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §1701.37, and plaintiff served that request for inspection on May 8, 2015. On August 17, 2015 plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint. On September 30, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. As of November 20, 2015 the motion was fully briefed and awaits decision.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning our financial performance that were false or misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. On January 21, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to move forward. The case is entering the early stages of discovery.

On February 10, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Columbus, Ohio, against us and certain of our current and former outside directors and executive officers (David Campisi, Steven Fishman, Joe Cooper, Charles Haubiel, Timothy Johnson, Robert Claxton, John Martin, Norman Rankin, Paul Schroeder, Robert Segal, Steven Smart, David Kollat, Jeffrey Berger, James Chambers, Peter Hayes, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, James Tener and Dennis Tishkoff). The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants traded in our common shares based on material, nonpublic information concerning our guidance for fiscal 2012 and the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and the director defendants failed to suspend our share repurchase program during such trading activity. The complaint also alleges that we and various individual defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our Canadian operations prior to our announcement on December 5, 2013 that we were exiting the Canadian market. The complaint asserts claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and misappropriation of insider information and seeks damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement to us of proceeds from any wrongful sales of our common shares, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses. At the parties’ request, the court has stayed this lawsuit until after the judge in the federal lawsuits discussed in the preceding paragraphs has ruled on the motions to dismiss pending in all those federal lawsuits.

We believe that the shareholder derivative and putative class action lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in these lawsuits. While a loss from these lawsuits is reasonably possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result or whether the lawsuits will have a material impact on our financial statements.

On October 1, 2013, we received a subpoena from the District Attorney for the County of Alameda, State of California, seeking information concerning our handling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste in the State of California. We have provided information and are cooperating with the authorities from multiple counties and cities in California in connection with this ongoing matter. While a loss related to this matter is reasonably possible, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this matter or whether this matter will have a material impact on our financial statements. In October 2014, Big Lots received a notice of a second violation from the California Air Resources Board alleging that it sold certain products that contained volatile organic compounds in excess of regulated limits (windshield washer fluid). This matter is in its early stages and settlement discussions are continuing. We anticipate that any resolution of this matter is likely to exceed $100,000.

In 2013, we sold certain tabletop torch and citronella products manufactured by a third party. In August 2013, we recalled these products and discontinued their sale in our stores. In 2014, we were named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits relating to these products alleging personal injuries suffered as a result of negligent shelving and pairing of the products, product design, manufacturing and marketing defects and/or breach of warranties. Although we believe that we are entitled to indemnification from the third party manufacturer of the products for all of the expenses that we have incurred (and may in the future incur) with respect to these matters and that these expenses are covered by our insurance (subject to a $1 million deductible), in the second quarter of 2015, we (1) determined that our ability to obtain any recovery from the manufacturer may be limited because, among other things, the manufacturer has exhausted its applicable insurance coverage, is domiciled outside the United States and has been dissolved by its parent and (2) became engaged in litigation with our excess insurance carrier regarding the scope of our coverage. In the second quarter of 2015, we settled one of the lawsuits and reached an agreement in principle to settle another lawsuit, which was later finalized in the third quarter of 2015. Two additional lawsuits remain pending against Big Lots in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, respectively. Both of the outstanding lawsuits are in the discovery phase. During the second quarter of 2015, we recorded a $4.5 million charge related to these matters.

We are involved in other legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We currently believe that each such action and claim will be resolved without a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. However, litigation involves an element of uncertainty. Future developments could cause these actions or claims to have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

We are self-insured for certain losses relating to property, general liability, workers' compensation, and employee medical, dental, and prescription drug benefit claims, a portion of which is paid by employees, and we have purchased stop-loss coverage in order to limit significant exposure in these areas. Accrued insurance liabilities are actuarially determined based on claims filed and estimates of claims incurred but not reported. We use letters of credit, which amounted to $55.0 million at January 30, 2016, as collateral to back certain of our self-insured losses with our claims administrators.

We have purchase obligations for outstanding purchase orders for merchandise issued in the ordinary course of our business that are valued at $434.4 million, the entirety of which represents obligations due within one year of January 30, 2016. In addition, we have purchase commitments for future inventory purchases totaling $33.9 million at January 30, 2016. We paid $11.3 million, $16.8 million, and $21.7 million related to this commitment during 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively. We are not required to meet any periodic minimum purchase requirements under this commitment. The term of the commitment extends until the purchase requirement is satisfied. We have additional purchase obligations in the amount of $181.4 million primarily related to distribution and transportation, information technology, print advertising, energy procurement, and other store security, supply, and maintenance commitments.