Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
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”). 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 (the “Consolidated Securities Action”), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an opposition by May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs may then file a reply brief by May 9, 2018, and Defendants may submit a sur-reply by May 16, 2018. 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, ordering the Shakir Complaint as the operative complaint. On November 2, 2017, the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until April 11, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the parties filed a proposed stipulation agreeing to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until October 4, 2018, which the Court granted on May 3, 2018. 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 its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the “Merenstein Complaint”). On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”) and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the “Oliver Complaint”), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants’ time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the consolidated Securities Class Actions, described above. Center for Environmental Health v. Save Mart Supermarkets, et.al., Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County On August 19, 2015, the Center for Environmental Health (“CEH”), a private enforcer, filed a complaint under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (the “Enforcement Act”) (commonly referred to as “Proposition 65”), naming various defendants, including the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company is required to provide warnings for certain of its products for alleged exposure to the substance listed under the Enforcement Act as “acrylamide.” The other defendants named in the action are five retailers and one distributor, all of which are named for the Company’s products at issue. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking processes, such as frying, roasting, and baking. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 per day (unrounded) for each alleged violation, and CEH’s attorneys’ fees and costs. To date, the Company has answered the complaint, denying the allegations, and engaged in discovery, including fact discovery and expert discovery, which remains ongoing. The Court has bifurcated the trial into two phases for liability and remedies and, during the quarter ended March 31, 2018, confirmed the scheduling of the first phase of the trial on liability to move forward on October 19, 2018. The parties anticipate that this phase of the trial will be limited to the Company establishing the “no significant risk level.” 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. The SEC has issued subpoenas to the Company 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”). 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 (the “Consolidated Securities Action”), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (collectively, the “Defendants”) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company’s business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an opposition by May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs may then file a reply brief by May 9, 2018, and Defendants may submit a sur-reply by May 16, 2018.

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, ordering the Shakir Complaint as the operative complaint. On November 2, 2017, the parties agreed to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until April 11, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the parties filed a proposed stipulation agreeing to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until October 4, 2018, which the Court granted on May 3, 2018.

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 its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the “Merenstein Complaint”).

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action”) and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the “Oliver Complaint”), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants’ time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the consolidated Securities Class Actions, described above.

Center for Environmental Health v. Save Mart Supermarkets, et.al., Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County

On August 19, 2015, the Center for Environmental Health (“CEH”), a private enforcer, filed a complaint under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (the “Enforcement Act”) (commonly referred to as “Proposition 65”), naming various defendants, including the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company is required to provide warnings for certain of its products for alleged exposure to the substance listed under the Enforcement Act as “acrylamide.” The other defendants named in the action are five retailers and one distributor, all of which are named for the Company’s products at issue. Acrylamide is a chemical that can form in some foods during high-temperature cooking processes, such as frying, roasting, and baking. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 per day (unrounded) for each alleged violation, and CEH’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

To date, the Company has answered the complaint, denying the allegations, and engaged in discovery, including fact discovery and expert discovery, which remains ongoing. The Court has bifurcated the trial into two phases for liability and remedies and, during the quarter ended March 31, 2018, confirmed the scheduling of the first phase of the trial on liability to move forward on October 19, 2018. The parties anticipate that this phase of the trial will be limited to the Company establishing the “no significant risk level.”

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. The SEC has issued subpoenas to the Company 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.