Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Nov. 02, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for alleged uniform and business expenses, injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs appealed and, on October 12, 2012, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. On January 23, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for review. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order to send the case back to the trial court to proceed on behalf of only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class action. In October 2013, the Company entered into confidential settlement agreements that resolved the matter. On April 24, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) requested information and records relevant to several charges of discrimination by the Company against employees of the Company. In the course of this investigation, the EEOC served a subpoena seeking information related to current and former employees throughout the United States. On November 14, 2012, the Company reached resolution with the EEOC and several of the individual complainants that concluded the EEOC's investigation. Between November 2012 and March 2013, the Company paid approximately $0.8 million to settle with individual complainants. The Company also agreed to programmatic initiatives that are consistent with the Company's diversity plan. The Company will report progress on its initiatives and results periodically to the EEOC. Claimants with whom the Company did not enter into a settlement had an opportunity to bring a private lawsuit within ninety days from the date they received their November 26, 2012 right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, however, that time period is tolled for those individuals who are putative class members in a race discrimination class action filed on July 12, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California with respect to any race discrimination claims they have that are within the scope of the putative class action (see below). On December 12, 2012, the EEOC issued a "for cause" finding related to certain allegations made by one complainant, who is the lead plaintiff in the above-referenced class action. On May 9, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 9, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory penalties, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 3, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer venue to the County of Orange. On July 13, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the trial court's order compelling individual arbitration, but reversing the trial court's order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis. The Company intends to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court. In a concurrent proceeding, on July 18, 2012, the Company received notice that Plaintiffs filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Board Act based on the arbitration agreements Plaintiffs signed upon their hiring with the Company. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's arbitration agreements unlawfully compel employees to waive their rights to participate in class or representative actions against the Company. On September 20, 2012, the NLRB dismissed Plaintiffs' claims. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed in California during the time period from October 27, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On March 28, 2012, the court entered an Order denying the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a notice of appeal that is currently pending. On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former African American retail store employees. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment discrimination of those African American current and former employees in promotion to management positions and against African American store management employees with respect to compensation and termination from 2008 through the present. Plaintiffs also alleged retaliation. Plaintiffs also sought reinstatement or instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to their alleged rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory damages for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. On May 8, 2013, the Company and Class Representatives filed papers memorializing an amicable resolution to the case pending final court approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for a cash payment of $7.5 million and also includes programmatic relief under which the Company agrees to post open positions, implement new selection criteria and interview protocols, revamp its annual performance reviews and compensation structure, add regional human resource directors, implement more diversity and inclusion communications and training for field and corporate office employees, and enhance its investigations training and processes. The Company has also reflected its commitment to use diverse models in its marketing and to partnerships with organizations dedicated to the advancement and well-being of African Americans and other diverse groups. On June 12, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and in June 2013 the Company issued payment to the settlement administrator for $7.5 million. The final approval hearing was held on November 18, 2013 and a decision is currently pending. As of November 2, 2013, the Company has accrued $0.2 million for loss contingencies in connection with the litigation matters enumerated above, and certain other legal matters, which is included in accounts payable - other on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Some of these contingency matters include or may include insurance recovery. The Company is vigorously defending the pending matters and will continue to evaluate its potential exposure and estimated costs as these matters progress. Future developments may require the Company to adjust the amount of this accrual, which, if increased, could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations or financial condition. From time to time, the Company is involved in other litigation matters relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business. The Company believes that, in the event of a settlement or an adverse judgment on certain of these claims, insurance may cover a portion of such losses. However, the outcome of the Company's litigation matters cannot be accurately predicted and there may be existing matters or matters that arise for which the Company does not have insurance coverage or for which insurance provides only partial coverage. Such outcome could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for alleged uniform and business expenses, injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs appealed and, on October 12, 2012, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. On January 23, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for review. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order to send the case back to the trial court to proceed on behalf of only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class action. In October 2013, the Company entered into confidential settlement agreements that resolved the matter.

On April 24, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) requested information and records relevant to several charges of discrimination by the Company against employees of the Company. In the course of this investigation, the EEOC served a subpoena seeking information related to current and former employees throughout the United States. On November 14, 2012, the Company reached resolution with the EEOC and several of the individual complainants that concluded the EEOC's investigation. Between November 2012 and March 2013, the Company paid approximately $0.8 million to settle with individual complainants. The Company also agreed to programmatic initiatives that are consistent with the Company's diversity plan. The Company will report progress on its initiatives and results periodically to the EEOC. Claimants with whom the Company did not enter into a settlement had an opportunity to bring a private lawsuit within ninety days from the date they received their November 26, 2012 right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, however, that time period is tolled for those individuals who are putative class members in a race discrimination class action filed on July 12, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California with respect to any race discrimination claims they have that are within the scope of the putative class action (see below). On December 12, 2012, the EEOC issued a "for cause" finding related to certain allegations made by one complainant, who is the lead plaintiff in the above-referenced class action.

On May 9, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from May 9, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory penalties, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 3, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer venue to the County of Orange. On July 13, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the trial court's order compelling individual arbitration, but reversing the trial court's order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis. The Company intends to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court. In a concurrent proceeding, on July 18, 2012, the Company received notice that Plaintiffs filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Board Act based on the arbitration agreements Plaintiffs signed upon their hiring with the Company. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's arbitration agreements unlawfully compel employees to waive their rights to participate in class or representative actions against the Company. On September 20, 2012, the NLRB dismissed Plaintiffs' claims.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed in California during the time period from October 27, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On March 28, 2012, the court entered an Order denying the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a notice of appeal that is currently pending.

On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former African American retail store employees. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment discrimination of those African American current and former employees in promotion to management positions and against African American store management employees with respect to compensation and termination from 2008 through the present. Plaintiffs also alleged retaliation. Plaintiffs also sought reinstatement or instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to their alleged rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory damages for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. On May 8, 2013, the Company and Class Representatives filed papers memorializing an amicable resolution to the case pending final court approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for a cash payment of $7.5 million and also includes programmatic relief under which the Company agrees to post open positions, implement new selection criteria and interview protocols, revamp its annual performance reviews and compensation structure, add regional human resource directors, implement more diversity and inclusion communications and training for field and corporate office employees, and enhance its investigations training and processes. The Company has also reflected its commitment to use diverse models in its marketing and to partnerships with organizations dedicated to the advancement and well-being of African Americans and other diverse groups. On June 12, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and in June 2013 the Company issued payment to the settlement administrator for $7.5 million. The final approval hearing was held on November 18, 2013 and a decision is currently pending.

As of November 2, 2013, the Company has accrued $0.2 million for loss contingencies in connection with the litigation matters enumerated above, and certain other legal matters, which is included in accounts payable - other on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Some of these contingency matters include or may include insurance recovery. The Company is vigorously defending the pending matters and will continue to evaluate its potential exposure and estimated costs as these matters progress. Future developments may require the Company to adjust the amount of this accrual, which, if increased, could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.

From time to time, the Company is involved in other litigation matters relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business. The Company believes that, in the event of a settlement or an adverse judgment on certain of these claims, insurance may cover a portion of such losses. However, the outcome of the Company's litigation matters cannot be accurately predicted and there may be existing matters or matters that arise for which the Company does not have insurance coverage or for which insurance provides only partial coverage. Such outcome could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.