Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jan. 28, 2017
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. The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint captioned In re Big Lots, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 2:12-cv-00445 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), which generally alleged 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 asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and sought 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 sought 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 against Jeffrey Berger, Steven Fishman, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, and Dennis Tishkoff. On September 30, 2015, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery in this case is currently stayed, as discussed further below. 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 captioned Brosz v. Fishman et al., No. 1:13-cv-00753 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Brosz Action”) 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 originally named in the 2012 shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleged 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 asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and misappropriation of trade secrets and sought 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. On December 29, 2016, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and ordered that the Brosz Action be consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action. On February 10, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Columbus, Ohio, captioned Tremblay v. Campisi et al., No. 14CV-02-1421 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Cnty.) (the “Tremblay Action”), 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 stayed this lawsuit until after the judge in the federal derivative lawsuits discussed in the preceding paragraphs has ruled on the motions to dismiss pending in those actions. On January 12, 2017, the Tremblay Action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, without prejudice to refiling. On August 1, 2016, our Board of Directors passed a resolution creating a special litigation committee (“SLC”) to conduct an independent investigation and determine, in its sole discretion, whether it is in the best interests of the Company to pursue, settle, or seek dismissal of, the claims asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Brosz Action, and the Tremblay Action. The SLC is composed of three members, each of whom is a director that is not a party to any of the derivative actions and was not a member of the Board until well after the relevant time period. The SLC has retained independent counsel and is actively proceeding with its investigation. On October 20, 2016, the Company filed motions to stay all proceedings in the Consolidated Derivative Action and the Brosz Action pending the completion of the SLC’s investigation. The court granted the motion to stay all proceedings on December 15, 2016. On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-00604 (S.D. Ohio) 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 currently in discovery. On May 27, 2016, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification (requesting a class period from March 2, 2012 through August 23, 2012) and to appoint class representatives and class counsel. Defendants opposed the motion. On March 17, 2017, the Court granted plantiff's motion, certifying the class and appointing class representatives and class counsel. On March 31, 2017, the Company anticipates filing a petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for appeal of the Court's ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 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 2013, we sold certain tabletop torch and citronella products manufactured by third parties. In August 2013, we recalled the 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 manufacturers 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 of the tabletop torches 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 settled another lawsuit 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. In the first quarter of 2017, we reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiff in the New Jersey action and are in the process of formalizing the settlement agreement. The Pennsylvania action remains in the discovery phase. Additionally, we have brought a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court of Massachusetts against the company that tested the product. 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 $58.6 million at January 28, 2017, 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 $416.5 million, the entirety of which represents obligations due within one year of January 28, 2017. In addition, we have purchase commitments for future inventory purchases totaling $26.6 million at January 28, 2017. We paid $18.2 million, $11.3 million, and $16.8 million related to this commitment during 2016, 2015, and 2014, 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 $206.8 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. The lawsuits were consolidated, and, on August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint captioned In re Big Lots, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 2:12-cv-00445 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), which generally alleged 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 asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets and corporate waste and sought 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 sought 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 against Jeffrey Berger, Steven Fishman, David Kollat, Brenda Lauderback, Philip Mallott, Russell Solt, and Dennis Tishkoff. On September 30, 2015, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery in this case is currently stayed, as discussed further below.

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 captioned Brosz v. Fishman et al., No. 1:13-cv-00753 (S.D. Ohio) (the “Brosz Action”) 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 originally named in the 2012 shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiff’s complaint generally alleged 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 asserted claims under Ohio law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and misappropriation of trade secrets and sought 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. On December 29, 2016, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and ordered that the Brosz Action be consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action.

On February 10, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Columbus, Ohio, captioned Tremblay v. Campisi et al., No. 14CV-02-1421 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Cnty.) (the “Tremblay Action”), 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 stayed this lawsuit until after the judge in the federal derivative lawsuits discussed in the preceding paragraphs has ruled on the motions to dismiss pending in those actions. On January 12, 2017, the Tremblay Action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, without prejudice to refiling.

On August 1, 2016, our Board of Directors passed a resolution creating a special litigation committee (“SLC”) to conduct an independent investigation and determine, in its sole discretion, whether it is in the best interests of the Company to pursue, settle, or seek dismissal of, the claims asserted in the Consolidated Derivative Action, the Brosz Action, and the Tremblay Action. The SLC is composed of three members, each of whom is a director that is not a party to any of the derivative actions and was not a member of the Board until well after the relevant time period. The SLC has retained independent counsel and is actively proceeding with its investigation. On October 20, 2016, the Company filed motions to stay all proceedings in the Consolidated Derivative Action and the Brosz Action pending the completion of the SLC’s investigation. The court granted the motion to stay all proceedings on December 15, 2016.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-00604 (S.D. Ohio) 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 currently in discovery. On May 27, 2016, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification (requesting a class period from March 2, 2012 through August 23, 2012) and to appoint class representatives and class counsel. Defendants opposed the motion. On March 17, 2017, the Court granted plantiff's motion, certifying the class and appointing class representatives and class counsel. On March 31, 2017, the Company anticipates filing a petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for appeal of the Court's ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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 2013, we sold certain tabletop torch and citronella products manufactured by third parties. In August 2013, we recalled the 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 manufacturers 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 of the tabletop torches 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 settled another lawsuit 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. In the first quarter of 2017, we reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiff in the New Jersey action and are in the process of formalizing the settlement agreement. The Pennsylvania action remains in the discovery phase. Additionally, we have brought a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court of Massachusetts against the company that tested the product. 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 $58.6 million at January 28, 2017, 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 $416.5 million, the entirety of which represents obligations due within one year of January 28, 2017. In addition, we have purchase commitments for future inventory purchases totaling $26.6 million at January 28, 2017. We paid $18.2 million, $11.3 million, and $16.8 million related to this commitment during 2016, 2015, and 2014, 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 $206.8 million primarily related to distribution and transportation, information technology, print advertising, energy procurement, and other store security, supply, and maintenance commitments.