Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., (the “Flora Complaint”); (2) Lynn v. the Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Lynn Complaint”); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Spadola Complaint” and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the “Securities Complaints”). The Securities Complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The Securities Complaints were brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain securities between November 5, 2015 and August 15, 2016. On October 17, 2016, six potential plaintiffs and their respective law firms moved to serve as lead plaintiff and counsel. On June 5, 2017, the Court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Stockholder Derivative Complaints Filed in State Court On September 16, 2016, a stockholder derivative complaint, Paperny v. Heyer, et al. (the “Paperny Complaint”), was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, lack of oversight and corporate waste. On December 2, 2016 and December 29, 2016, two additional stockholder derivative complaints were filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers under the captions Scarola v. Simon (the “Scarola Complaint”) and Shakir v. Simon (the “Shakir Complaint” and, together with the Paperny Complaint and the Scarola Complaint, the “Derivative Complaints”), respectively. Both the Scarola Complaint and the Shakir Complaint allege breach of fiduciary duty, lack of oversight and unjust enrichment. On February 16, 2017, the parties for the Derivative Complaints entered into a stipulation consolidating the matters under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County, and the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until November 2, 2017. Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the “Silva Complaint”) and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the “Barnes Complaint”), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold an Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. SEC Investigation As previously disclosed, the Company voluntarily contacted the SEC in August 2016 to advise it of the Company’s delay in the filing of its periodic reports and the performance of the independent review conducted by the Audit Committee. The Company has continued to provide information to the SEC on an ongoing basis, including, among other things, the results of the independent review of the Audit Committee as well as other information pertaining to its internal accounting review relating to revenue recognition. On January 31, 2017, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company seeking documents relevant to its investigation. The Company is in the process of responding to the SEC’s requests for information and intends to cooperate fully with the SEC. Other In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position, cash flows or liquidity.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Actions Filed in Federal Court

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., (the “Flora Complaint”); (2) Lynn v. the Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Lynn Complaint”); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the “Spadola Complaint” and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the “Securities Complaints”). The Securities Complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The Securities Complaints were brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain securities between November 5, 2015 and August 15, 2016. On October 17, 2016, six potential plaintiffs and their respective law firms moved to serve as lead plaintiff and counsel. On June 5, 2017, the Court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

Stockholder Derivative Complaints Filed in State Court

On September 16, 2016, a stockholder derivative complaint, Paperny v. Heyer, et al. (the “Paperny Complaint”), was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, lack of oversight and corporate waste. On December 2, 2016 and December 29, 2016, two additional stockholder derivative complaints were filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County against the Board of Directors and certain officers under the captions Scarola v. Simon (the “Scarola Complaint”) and Shakir v. Simon (the “Shakir Complaint” and, together with the Paperny Complaint and the Scarola Complaint, the “Derivative Complaints”), respectively. Both the Scarola Complaint and the Shakir Complaint allege breach of fiduciary duty, lack of oversight and unjust enrichment. On February 16, 2017, the parties for the Derivative Complaints entered into a stipulation consolidating the matters under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”) in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County, and the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until November 2, 2017.

Additional Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaints Filed in Federal Court

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. (the “Silva Complaint”) and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the “Barnes Complaint”), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold an Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

SEC Investigation

As previously disclosed, the Company voluntarily contacted the SEC in August 2016 to advise it of the Company’s delay in the filing of its periodic reports and the performance of the independent review conducted by the Audit Committee. The Company has continued to provide information to the SEC on an ongoing basis, including, among other things, the results of the independent review of the Audit Committee as well as other information pertaining to its internal accounting review relating to revenue recognition. On January 31, 2017, the SEC issued a subpoena to the Company seeking documents relevant to its investigation. The Company is in the process of responding to the SEC’s requests for information and intends to cooperate fully with the SEC.

Other

In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is and may be a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position, cash flows or liquidity.