Legal Matters	6 Months Ended
Aug. 03, 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 or about June 14, 2013, the said Superior Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, scheduled a final approval hearing and took certain other action in furtherance of the settlement. Although we expect the Superior Court to finally 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. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Johnson Complaint”) against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Johnson 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 Johnson Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys' fees). We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. (The law firm which filed the Johnson Complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms which filed the “Schneider Complaint,” which is discussed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately one week later, the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.) 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 or about June 14, 2013, the said Superior Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, scheduled a final approval hearing and took certain other action in furtherance of the settlement. Although we expect the Superior Court to finally 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. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Johnson Complaint”) against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Johnson 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 Johnson Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys' fees). We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. (The law firm which filed the Johnson Complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms which filed the “Schneider Complaint,” which is discussed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately one week later, the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.)

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.