Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES 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. In March of 2016, we entered into settlement negotiations related to this matter. Overall, during the first quarter of 2016, we recorded accruals totaling $4.7 million associated with pending legal and regulatory matters. In October 2014, we received a notice of a second violation from the California Air Resources Board alleging that we sold certain products that contained volatile organic compounds in excess of regulated limits (windshield washer fluid). In May 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with the California Air Resources Board related to the matters alleged it its notice pursuant to which we paid $0.3 million. 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.

CONTINGENCIES

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. In March of 2016, we entered into settlement negotiations related to this matter. Overall, during the first quarter of 2016, we recorded accruals totaling $4.7 million associated with pending legal and regulatory matters.

In October 2014, we received a notice of a second violation from the California Air Resources Board alleging that we sold certain products that contained volatile organic compounds in excess of regulated limits (windshield washer fluid). In May 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with the California Air Resources Board related to the matters alleged it its notice pursuant to which we paid $0.3 million.

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.