Legal Matters	3 Months Ended
May 04, 2013
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. On December 21, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle this case. The proposed settlement has been recorded by the Company. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on April 19, 2013. On May 13, 2013, Mr. Holmes moved the said Superior Court for an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, scheduling a final approval hearing and taking certain other action in furtherance of the settlement. Although we expect the Superior Court to approve the settlement agreement, we cannot provide any assurance that it will do so. 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 “Original 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 Original 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 Original 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. On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the said United States District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta Complaint. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. On May 24, 2013, John E. Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Schneider Complaint”) against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 1:13-cv-01175-SL). The Schneider Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the Company relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price”. The Schneider Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of two classes of plaintiffs (one based on purchases at a percentage or discount off an advertised “regular price” and one based on purchases of an item at “regular price” in connection with an offer of at least one other “free item”), compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). 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.

On December 21, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle this case. The proposed settlement has been recorded by the Company. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on April 19, 2013. On May 13, 2013, Mr. Holmes moved the said Superior Court for an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, scheduling a final approval hearing and taking certain other action in furtherance of the settlement. Although we expect the Superior Court to approve the settlement agreement, we cannot provide any assurance that it will do so.

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 “Original 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 Original 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 Original 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. On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the said United States District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta Complaint. We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On May 24, 2013, John E. Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Schneider Complaint”) against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 1:13-cv-01175-SL). The Schneider Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the Company relating to its use of the words “free” and “regular price”. The Schneider Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of two classes of plaintiffs (one based on purchases at a percentage or discount off an advertised “regular price” and one based on purchases of an item at “regular price” in connection with an offer of at least one other “free item”), compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys’ fees). 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.