Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and contingencies	Jun. 29, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject. Alabama Municipal Litigation In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Gadsden Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing specific perfluorinated compounds, including the Company. On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Gadsden Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court, and the defendants opposed the Gadsden Water Board’s motion. The federal court granted Gadsden Water Board’s motion for remand. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a very similar complaint to the Gadsden Water Board complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County. On June 19, 2017, the defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, again alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Centre Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, and the defendants opposed the Centre Water Board’s motion. The federal court granted Centre Water Board's motion for remand. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case arguing that the state court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Both state courts denied those motions. In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus directing each lower court to enter an order granting the defendants’ dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds. Those petitions have been fully briefed and the Company awaits a decision from the Alabama Supreme Court. The Company has never manufactured the perfluorinated compounds at issue but purchased them for use in the manufacture of its carpets prior to 2007. The Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are not alleging that chemical levels in the Company’s wastewater discharge exceeded legal limits. Instead, the Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are seeking lost profits based on allegations that their customers decreased water purchases, as well as reimbursement for the cost of a filter and punitive damages. Belgian Tax Matter Between 2012 and 2014, the Company received assessments from the Belgian tax authority for the calendar years 2005 through 2010 in the amounts of €46,135, €38,817, €39,635, €30,131, €35,567 and €43,117 respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Belgian tax authority denied the Company’s formal protests against these assessments and the Company brought all six years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges. The Court of First Appeal in Bruges ruled in favor of the Company on January 27, 2016, with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009; and on June 13, 2018, the Court of First Appeal in Bruges ruled in favor of the Company with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2010. The Belgian tax authority has lodged its Notification of Appeal for all six years with the Ghent Court of Appeal. In March 2019, the Company received assessments from the Belgian tax authority for tax years 2011 through 2017 in the amount of €40,617, €39,732, €11,358, €23,919, €30,610, €93,145 and €79,933 respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company intends to file formal protests based on these assessments in a timely manner. The assessments are largely based on the same facts underlying the positive rulings, which the Belgian tax authority is appealing. The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Nevertheless, on May 24, 2016, the tax collector representing the Belgian tax authorities imposed a lien on the Company’s properties in Wielsbeke (Ooigemstraat and Breestraat), Oostrozebeke (Ingelmunstersteenweg) and Desselgem (Waregemstraat) included in the Flooring ROW segment. The purpose of the lien is to provide security for payment should the Belgian tax authority prevail on its appeal. The lien does not interfere with the Company’s operations at these properties. General The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.