19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease commitments

We lease retail business locations, office and warehouse facilities, and equipment under various non-cancelable operating leases expiring in various years through 2029. Rent expense for operating leases for fiscal 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $251.0 million, $254.5 million and $261.5 million, respectively, and includes contingent rentals of $1.8 million, $2.1 million and $2.0 million, respectively. Sublease rentals of $0.9 million, $1.2 million, and $1.3 million were received in fiscal 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Minimum future rental payments under non‑cancelable operating leases as of February 2, 2019 for each of the next five years and in the aggregate are as follows (in thousands):


	Operating
Fiscal Year	Leases
2019	$	239,711
2020		209,596
2021		175,962
2022		134,208
2023		88,187
Thereafter		141,084
Total	$	988,748

The total minimum lease commitments above do not include minimum sublease rent income of $0.8 million receivable in the future under non‑cancelable sublease agreements.

Leases on retail locations specify minimum rentals plus common area maintenance charges and possible additional rentals based upon percentages of sales. Most of the retail location leases provide for renewal options at rates specified in the leases. In the normal course of business, these leases are generally renewed or replaced by other leases.

Legal matters

On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class action lawsuit against our Men's Wearhouse subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:16-cv-01100). The complaint attempts to allege claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In particular the complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones beginning October 1, 2013 to the present day. After we demonstrated that the Company had the plaintiff's permission to send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the Company sent text messages exceeding the number plaintiff had agreed to receive each week. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on what constitutes a “week” and the Court recently issued an order granting the plaintiff’s motion and denying our motion on what period constitutes a “week.” On or about August 17, 2018, we entered into a settlement agreement for an immaterial amount consisting of a combination of cash and coupons. The settlement agreement, which is subject to preliminary and final approval of the Court, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648). The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines, Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs filed a Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on behalf of 39 named plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy Air Inc. as defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a new claim of fraud against American. The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody (Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters we reported in prior filings. As a result, on October 16, 2018, the judge dismissed the separate Onody and Joy matters. We have timely answered the Second Amended Complaint and the matter will proceed in due course. Thirteen additional plaintiffs have been added bringing the total number of named plaintiffs to 52. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On September 27, 2017, Heather Poole and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG17876798). The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On December 11, 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On February 20, 2018, the Court granted our demurrer and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2018 and again on April 27, 2018, which added allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and named Tailored Brands as a defendant. This case was consolidated for pretrial purposes only with the Agnello, Hughes, Mackonochie and Wagoner cases, with Poole as the lead case. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On October 30, 2017, Melodie Agnello, Denise Mumma, and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG17880635). The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. On December 11, 2017, the Company filed a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint. On February 20, 2018, the Court granted our demurrer and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 27, 2018, which added allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and named Tailored Brands as a defendant. This case had been consolidated for pretrial purposes only with Poole. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On April 27, 2018, Alexandra Hughes, and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and Tailored Brands in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG18902727). The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. This case had been consolidated for pretrial purposes only with Poole. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On April 27, 2018, Rosemary Mackonochie, and numerous other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and Tailored Brands in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG18902720). The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. This case had been consolidated for pretrial purposes only with Poole. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On August 31, 2018, Michele Wagoner and several other American Airlines employees filed a lawsuit against our Twin Hill subsidiary and Tailored Brands in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG18919080). The complaint attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to American Airlines for its employees. This case had been consolidated for pretrial purposes only with Poole. We believe that any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, we are involved in various routine legal proceedings, including ongoing litigation, incidental to the conduct of our business. Management does not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.