Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies (a) Purchase Commitments. The Company will, from time to time, enter into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials. Amounts committed under these programs are not significant as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. (b) Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012 Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012 On June 20 and 25, 2012, the above suits were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased the Company’s stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company’s competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company’s 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Per the Order, the Company is awaiting the Judge’s memorandum of opinion. Should the plaintiffs appeal, the Company would vigorously defend against the claims. The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the suits, an estimate of a range of losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an adverse verdict in these suits, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. (c) Sealy Mattress Company of NJ, Inc., David Hertz, individually, as trustee of, respectively, the Allison Lindsay Hertz Trust, the Samuel Douglas Hertz Trust, the Sydney Lauren Hertz Trust, the U/A DTD 08/21/97 Andrew Michael Marcus Trust, the U/A DTD 08/21/97 Julia Robyn Marcus Trust, and the U/A DTD 08/21/97 James Daniel Marcus Trust, and as executor of the Estate of Walter Hertz, Lisa Marcus, Rose Naiman, Michael Shoobs, and Diane Shoobs, individually and as custodian of the Robert S. Shoobs UTMA NJ v. Sealy Corporation, filed June 27, 2013. With respect to the Sealy Acquisition, holders of approximately 3.1 million shares of Sealy common stock sent notices to Sealy purporting to exercise their appraisal rights in accordance with the Merger Agreement executed on September 26, 2012. In order to preserve these appraisal rights, any such former stockholder was required to commence an appraisal proceeding in the Delaware courts within 120 days after March 18, 2013. Sealy has expressly reserved its rights to contest that any or all of such notices were not delivered timely or otherwise not in the form required under Delaware law. On June 27, 2013, an appraisal proceeding was commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Appraisal Action”). If the fair value of the Sealy common stock formerly held by the former Sealy stockholders seeking the appraisal is determined to be greater than the $2.20 per share paid pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Sealy would be required to pay such difference, plus interest at the statutory rate, which could impact the Company’s financial condition and liquidity. (d) Michael Dodson, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013 On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. This matter is at a very preliminary stage, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. (e) Environmental. The Company is currently conducting an environmental cleanup at a formerly owned facility in South Brunswick, New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. Sealy and one of its subsidiaries are parties to an Administrative Consent Order issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Pursuant to that order, Sealy and its subsidiary agreed to conduct soil and groundwater remediation at the property. The Company does not believe that its manufacturing processes were the source of contamination. The Company sold the property in 1997. The Company retained primary responsibility for the required remediation. Previously, the Company removed and disposed of contaminated soil from the site with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection approval, and the Company has installed a groundwater remediation system on the site. During 2005, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company removed and disposed of sediment in Oakeys Brook adjoining the site. The Company continues to monitor ground water at the site. During 2012, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company commenced the removal and disposal of additional contaminated soil from the site. The Company has recorded a reserve as a component of other accrued expenses and other noncurrent liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2013 for $2.6 million associated with this remediation project. The Company has also undertaken a remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at an inactive facility located in Oakville, Connecticut. Although the Company is conducting the remediation voluntarily, it obtained Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) approval of the remediation plan. The Company believes that it has essentially completed its remediation of the site. In 2012, the Company submitted separate closure reports to the Connecticut DEEP for the lower portion of the site and the upper portion of the site. The Connecticut DEEP approved the Company’s closure report for the upper portion of the site and also gave conditional approval to the Company’s closure report for the lower portion of the site. The conditional approval for the lower portion closure required the Company to perform additional water monitoring on the lower portion of the site to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards. The Company performed that monitoring and submitted a closure report for the lower parcel to the Connecticut DEEP. After review of the closure report, the DEEP requested an additional well and continued monitoring. The Company has recorded a liability of approximately $0.1 million associated with the completion of the closure of its remediation efforts at the site. The Company believes the contamination is attributable to the manufacturing operations of previous, unrelated, unaffiliated occupants of the facility. The Company cannot predict the ultimate timing or costs of the South Brunswick and Oakville environmental matters. Based on facts currently known, the Company believes that the accruals recorded are adequate and does not believe the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on the financial position or future operations of the Company. However, in the event of an adverse decision by the agencies involved, or an unfavorable result in the New Jersey natural resources damages matter, these matters could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In 1998, the Company sold an inactive facility located in Putnam, Connecticut. In 2012, the Company received a letter from the attorney for the current owner of that property claiming that the Company may have some responsibility for an environmental condition on the property. The Company continues to investigate this matter, but intends to vigorously defend the claim of the current owner against the Company. (f) Income tax assessments. The Company has received income tax assessments from the Danish Tax Authority (“SKAT”). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the proposed adjustments and will oppose the assessments, as necessary, in the appropriate Danish venue. The Company believes the litigation process to reach a final resolution of this matter could potentially extend over the next five years. If the Company is not successful in defending its position that the Company owes no additional taxes, the Company could be required to pay a significant amount to SKAT, which could impair or reduce the Company's liquidity and profitability. For a description of these assessments and additional information with respect to these assessments and the various related legal proceedings, see Note 13, “Income Taxes”. (g) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.

Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Purchase Commitments. The Company will, from time to time, enter into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials. Amounts committed under these programs are not significant as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

(b) Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012

Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012

On June 20 and 25, 2012, the above suits were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased the Company’s stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company’s competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company’s 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Per the Order, the Company is awaiting the Judge’s memorandum of opinion. Should the plaintiffs appeal, the Company would vigorously defend against the claims. The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the suits, an estimate of a range of losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an adverse verdict in these suits, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(c) Sealy Mattress Company of NJ, Inc., David Hertz, individually, as trustee of, respectively, the Allison Lindsay Hertz Trust, the Samuel Douglas Hertz Trust, the Sydney Lauren Hertz Trust, the U/A DTD 08/21/97 Andrew Michael Marcus Trust, the U/A DTD 08/21/97 Julia Robyn Marcus Trust, and the U/A DTD 08/21/97 James Daniel Marcus Trust, and as executor of the Estate of Walter Hertz, Lisa Marcus, Rose Naiman, Michael Shoobs, and Diane Shoobs, individually and as custodian of the Robert S. Shoobs UTMA NJ v. Sealy Corporation, filed June 27, 2013. With respect to the Sealy Acquisition, holders of approximately 3.1 million shares of Sealy common stock sent notices to Sealy purporting to exercise their appraisal rights in accordance with the Merger Agreement executed on September 26, 2012. In order to preserve these appraisal rights, any such former stockholder was required to commence an appraisal proceeding in the Delaware courts within 120 days after March 18, 2013. Sealy has expressly reserved its rights to contest that any or all of such notices were not delivered timely or otherwise not in the form required under Delaware law. On June 27, 2013, an appraisal proceeding was commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Appraisal Action”). If the fair value of the Sealy common stock formerly held by the former Sealy stockholders seeking the appraisal is determined to be greater than the $2.20 per share paid pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Sealy would be required to pay such difference, plus interest at the statutory rate, which could impact the Company’s financial condition and liquidity.

(d) Michael Dodson, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. This matter is at a very preliminary stage, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(e) Environmental. The Company is currently conducting an environmental cleanup at a formerly owned facility in South Brunswick, New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. Sealy and one of its subsidiaries are parties to an Administrative Consent Order issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Pursuant to that order, Sealy and its subsidiary agreed to conduct soil and groundwater remediation at the property. The Company does not believe that its manufacturing processes were the source of contamination. The Company sold the property in 1997. The Company retained primary responsibility for the required remediation. Previously, the Company removed and disposed of contaminated soil from the site with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection approval, and the Company has installed a groundwater remediation system on the site. During 2005, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company removed and disposed of sediment in Oakeys Brook adjoining the site. The Company continues to monitor ground water at the site. During 2012, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company commenced the removal and disposal of additional contaminated soil from the site. The Company has recorded a reserve as a component of other accrued expenses and other noncurrent liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2013 for $2.6 million associated with this remediation project.

The Company has also undertaken a remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at an inactive facility located in Oakville, Connecticut. Although the Company is conducting the remediation voluntarily, it obtained Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) approval of the remediation plan. The Company believes that it has essentially completed its remediation of the site. In 2012, the Company submitted separate closure reports to the Connecticut DEEP for the lower portion of the site and the upper portion of the site. The Connecticut DEEP approved the Company’s closure report for the upper portion of the site and also gave conditional approval to the Company’s closure report for the lower portion of the site. The conditional approval for the lower portion closure required the Company to perform additional water monitoring on the lower portion of the site to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards. The Company performed that monitoring and submitted a closure report for the lower parcel to the Connecticut DEEP. After review of the closure report, the DEEP requested an additional well and continued monitoring. The Company has recorded a liability of approximately $0.1 million associated with the completion of the closure of its remediation efforts at the site. The Company believes the contamination is attributable to the manufacturing operations of previous, unrelated, unaffiliated occupants of the facility.

The Company cannot predict the ultimate timing or costs of the South Brunswick and Oakville environmental matters. Based on facts currently known, the Company believes that the accruals recorded are adequate and does not believe the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on the financial position or future operations of the Company. However, in the event of an adverse decision by the agencies involved, or an unfavorable result in the New Jersey natural resources damages matter, these matters could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In 1998, the Company sold an inactive facility located in Putnam, Connecticut. In 2012, the Company received a letter from the attorney for the current owner of that property claiming that the Company may have some responsibility for an environmental condition on the property. The Company continues to investigate this matter, but intends to vigorously defend the claim of the current owner against the Company.

(f) Income tax assessments. The Company has received income tax assessments from the Danish Tax Authority (“SKAT”). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the proposed adjustments and will oppose the assessments, as necessary, in the appropriate Danish venue. The Company believes the litigation process to reach a final resolution of this matter could potentially extend over the next five years. If the Company is not successful in defending its position that the Company owes no additional taxes, the Company could be required to pay a significant amount to SKAT, which could impair or reduce the Company's liquidity and profitability. For a description of these assessments and additional information with respect to these assessments and the various related legal proceedings, see Note 13, “Income Taxes”.

(g) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.