Legal Matters	9 Months Ended
Oct. 27, 2012
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
LEGAL MATTERS	LEGAL MATTERS On March 16, 2012, Neil Holmes, a former employee of the Company, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed a Complaint (the "Holmes Complaint") against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 112CV220780, alleging various violations of California wage and labor laws. The Holmes Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, injunctive relief, monetary damages, penalties, restitution, other equitable relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. On April 5, 2012, James Waldron and Matthew Villani, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case 2:33-av-00001). On August 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Waldron Complaint") alleging, among other things, that the Company’s merchandise is perpetually on sale and the sale price is actually the price at which the merchandise is regularly offered. As a result, the Waldron Complaint alleges the Company’s advertising practices violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and constitute unjust enrichment. The Waldron Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a national (or New Jersey only) class action, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, disgorgement of profits, monetary damages (including treble damages), restitution, costs and attorneys’ fees, statutory pre-judgment interest and other legal and equitable relief. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Camasta Complaint”) against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No. 12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Camasta Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Camasta Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are a party to routine litigation matters that are incidental to our business and are currently not expected to be material. From time to time, additional legal matters in which we may be named as a defendant are expected to arise in the normal course of our business activities. The resolution of our litigation matters cannot be accurately predicted and we have not estimated the costs or potential losses, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether our insurance coverage, if any, would be sufficient to cover such costs or potential losses, if any, and we have not recorded any provision for cost or loss associated with these actions. It is possible that our consolidated financial statements could be materially impacted in a particular fiscal quarter or year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any of these actions.

LEGAL MATTERS

On March 16, 2012, Neil Holmes, a former employee of the Company, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed a Complaint (the "Holmes Complaint") against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 112CV220780, alleging various violations of California wage and labor laws. The Holmes Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, injunctive relief, monetary damages, penalties, restitution, other equitable relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On April 5, 2012, James Waldron and Matthew Villani, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case 2:33-av-00001). On August 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Waldron Complaint") alleging, among other things, that the Company’s merchandise is perpetually on sale and the sale price is actually the price at which the merchandise is regularly offered. As a result, the Waldron Complaint alleges the Company’s advertising practices violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and constitute unjust enrichment. The Waldron Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a national (or New Jersey only) class action, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, disgorgement of profits, monetary damages (including treble damages), restitution, costs and attorneys’ fees, statutory pre-judgment interest and other legal and equitable relief. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Camasta Complaint”) against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No. 12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Camasta Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Camasta Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are a party to routine litigation matters that are incidental to our business and are currently not expected to be material. From time to time, additional legal matters in which we may be named as a defendant are expected to arise in the normal course of our business activities.

The resolution of our litigation matters cannot be accurately predicted and we have not estimated the costs or potential losses, if any, associated with these matters. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether our insurance coverage, if any, would be sufficient to cover such costs or potential losses, if any, and we have not recorded any provision for cost or loss associated with these actions. It is possible that our consolidated financial statements could be materially impacted in a particular fiscal quarter or year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any of these actions.