Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 29, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not appropriate for class treatment. It intends to vigorously defend the matter. At this time however, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is still in the early stages and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016, and settlement notices have been distributed. If finally approved, the proposed settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In March 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Given the overlap with the claims alleged in the Ackerman case, described above, the Court initially stayed the Cunningham case pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement. In October 2016, the parties agreed to lift the stay and to resolve the matter as an individual action. The Court has since dismissed the case. The settlement amount was immaterial. In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiff sought to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Chico’s stores in California. The Complaint alleged many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. As a result, the court stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman proposed settlement. The Company and the plaintiff subsequently agreed to a lifting of the stay and a filing of an amended complaint in early November, and the Company removed the case to the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 9, 2016. In the proposed First Amended Complaint, the plaintiff makes similar claims of Labor Code violations against the Company but does not seek to represent a putative class or make class action allegations. The Company disputes the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and, at this time, does not expect that this case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operation. On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. The Company believes that the matter is not appropriate for class treatment; however, it is not possible to predict whether it will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. Because class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss were it to lose on the merits of the case. However, the case is scheduled for voluntary mediation on November 28, 2016, and, at this time, the Company does not expect that the case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial conditions or results of operation. Other than as noted above, we are not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. All such matters are subject to uncertainties and outcomes may not be predictable. Consequently, the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of October 29, 2016 are not estimable. However, while such matters could affect our consolidated operating results when resolved in future periods, management believes that upon final disposition, any monetary liability or financial impact to us would not be material to our annual consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not appropriate for class treatment. It intends to vigorously defend the matter. At this time however, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is still in the early stages and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016, and settlement notices have been distributed. If finally approved, the proposed settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In March 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Given the overlap with the claims alleged in the Ackerman case, described above, the Court initially stayed the Cunningham case pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement. In October 2016, the parties agreed to lift the stay and to resolve the matter as an individual action. The Court has since dismissed the case. The settlement amount was immaterial.

In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiff sought to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Chico’s stores in California. The Complaint alleged many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. As a result, the court stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman proposed settlement. The Company and the plaintiff subsequently agreed to a lifting of the stay and a filing of an amended complaint in early November, and the Company removed the case to the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 9, 2016. In the proposed First Amended Complaint, the plaintiff makes similar claims of Labor Code violations against the Company but does not seek to represent a putative class or make class action allegations. The Company disputes the allegations of the First Amended Complaint and, at this time, does not expect that this case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operation.

On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. The Company believes that the matter is not appropriate for class treatment; however, it is not possible to predict whether it will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. Because class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss were it to lose on the merits of the case. However, the case is scheduled for voluntary mediation on November 28, 2016, and, at this time, the Company does not expect that the case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial conditions or results of operation.

Other than as noted above, we are not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. All such matters are subject to uncertainties and outcomes may not be predictable. Consequently, the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of October 29, 2016 are not estimable. However, while such matters could affect our consolidated operating results when resolved in future periods, management believes that upon final disposition, any monetary liability or financial impact to us would not be material to our annual consolidated financial statements.