Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and contingencies	Sep. 26, 2020
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. Perfluorinated Compounds (“PFCs”) 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 PFCs, including the Company. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama. The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied. 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. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20, 2019. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the Court to reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the application for rehearing. On August 21, 2020, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review of the matter. In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia (“Rome”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to PFCs. Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their drinking water. In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to federal court. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of these cases. The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to defend them vigorously. Putative Securities Class Action On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Securities Class Action"). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019 (“Class Period”). On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on the same claims and the same Class Period. The amended complaint alleges that the Company (1) engaged in fabricating revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were closed and recognizing these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced product to report higher operating margins and maintained significant inventory that was not salable; and (3) valued certain inventory improperly or improperly delivered inventory with knowledge that it was defective and customers would return it. On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Government Subpoenas As previously disclosed, on June 25, 2020, the Company received subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia (the "USAO") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") relating to matters similar to the allegations of wrongdoing raised by the Securities Class Action. The Company's Audit Committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, conducted a thorough internal investigation into these allegations. The Audit Committee has completed the investigation and concluded that the allegations of wrongdoing are without merit. The USAO and SEC investigations are ongoing, and the Company is cooperating fully with those authorities. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations of wrongdoing in the Securities Class Action and does not believe they have merit. Delaware State Court Action The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2020. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock in Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019. On March 27, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The stay may be lifted according to the terms set forth in the Court’s Order to Stay Litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Derivative Actions The Company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in certain derivative actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 18, 2020 and August 6, 2020, respectively. The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by causing the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements. The complaints are filed on behalf of the Company and seek to remedy fiduciary duty breaches occurring from April 28, 2017 – July 25, 2019. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the litigation. Other shareholders of record have jointly moved to intervene in the derivative actions to stay the proceedings. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene. On October 21, 2020, the Court entered an Order consolidating the derivative actions and appointing Lead Counsel. The consolidated action will remain stayed pending the earlier of either the Securities Class Action defendants filing an answer to the operative complaint or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the Securities Class Action. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. 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. On September 17, 2019, the Company pled its case to the Ghent Court of Special (Tax) Appeals and on October 1, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the Company, re-confirming the rulings of the Court of First Appeals in Bruges with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009. On March 12, 2020, the Belgian tax authority filed another revised assessment for the calendar year ending December 31, 2009, with the Ghent Court. In March 2019, the Company received assessments from the Belgian tax authority for tax years 2011 through 2017 which were, as a result of the positive ruling of the Ghent Court of Appeal, cancelled in January 2020. On March 10, 2020, a new notice of change was received for the year ending December 31, 2016, resulting in a tax assessment in the amount of €67,959, including penalties, but excluding interest, against which the Company filed a protest on April 10, 2020. The notice of change from the Belgian tax authority represents a change in position in which it intends to apply new laws enacted in 2018 to the Company's open tax years going back to 2009. On October 22, 2020, a notice of change was received by the Company’s licensing subsidiary in Luxembourg, against which the Company will file a protest. The notice covers the years ending December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2018 and is based on the same facts underlying the original actions that were unsuccessfully tried and appealed by the Belgian government. The Company has not received assessments relating to the notice of change, and the potential liabilities for each tax year are not yet known. The Company continues to disagree with the views of the Belgian tax authority on all matters referenced above 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 we are 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. The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign environmental health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing air emissions, wastewater discharges, the use, storage, treatment, recycling and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and finished product, and the cleanup of contamination associated therewith. Because of the nature of the Company’s business, the Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs relating to compliance with such laws and regulations. The Company is involved in various proceedings relating to environmental matters and is currently engaged in environmental investigation, remediation and post-closure care programs at certain sites. The Company has provided accruals for such activities that it has determined to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company does not expect that the ultimate liability with respect to such activities 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.