Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 02, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may become involved in lawsuits and other claims arising from our ordinary course of business. We are currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome, determine whether a liability has been incurred or make an estimate of the reasonably possible liability that could result from an unfavorable outcome because of the uncertainties related to the incurrence, amount and range of loss on any pending litigation or claim. Because of the unpredictable nature of these matters, we cannot provide any assurances regarding the outcome of any litigation or claim to which we are a party or that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters threatened or pending against us, including those disclosed below, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against us, alleging various violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In December 2017, we filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against us seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. We requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration agreement which plaintiff signed with our co-defendant, BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed. The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify Tilly's in this matter. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so. Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405. In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against us and dismissed the complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim. In March 2019, we filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Our opposition to the motion for class certification is due July 6, 2020. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so.

Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, we may become involved in lawsuits and other claims arising from our ordinary course of business. We are currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome, determine whether a liability has been incurred or make an estimate of the reasonably possible liability that could result from an unfavorable outcome because of the uncertainties related to the incurrence, amount and range of loss on any pending litigation or claim. Because of the unpredictable nature of these matters, we cannot provide any assurances regarding the outcome of any litigation or claim to which we are a party or that the ultimate outcome of any of the matters threatened or pending against us, including those disclosed below, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against us, alleging various violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In December 2017, we filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against us seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. We requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration agreement which plaintiff signed with our co-defendant, BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed. The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify Tilly's in this matter. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so.

Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly’s, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405. In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against us and dismissed the complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim. In March 2019, we filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Our opposition to the motion for class certification is due July 6, 2020. We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so.