COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	12 Months Ended
Feb. 27, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND OFF BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS Guarantees California Department of Industrial Relations: On October 24, 2012, the Office of Self-Insurance Plans, a program within the director's office of the California Department of Industrial Relations (the "DIR"), notified SuperValu, which was then the owner of NALP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, that additional collateral was required to be posted in connection with the Company's, and certain other subsidiaries', California self-insured workers' compensation obligations pursuant to applicable regulations. The notice from the DIR stated that the additional collateral was required as a result of an increase in estimated future liabilities, as determined by the DIR pursuant to a review of the self-insured California workers' compensation claims with respect to the applicable businesses. On January 21, 2014, the Company entered into a Collateral Substitution Agreement with the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund to provide collateral. The collateral not covered by the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund is covered by an irrevocable LOC for the benefit of the State of California Office of Self-Insurance Plans. The amount of the LOC is adjusted annually based on semi-annual filings of an actuarial study reflecting liabilities as of December 31 of each year reduced by claim closures and settlements. The related LOC was $40.1 million as of February 27, 2021 and $90.3 million as of February 29, 2020. Lease Guarantees: The Company may have liability under certain operating leases that were assigned to third parties. If any of these third parties fail to perform their obligations under the leases, the Company could be responsible for the lease obligation, including as a result of the economic dislocation caused by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the wide dispersion among third parties and the variety of remedies available, the Company believes that if an assignee became insolvent, it would not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company also provides guarantees, indemnifications and assurances to others in the ordinary course of its business. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, including lawsuits involving trade practices, lawsuits alleging violations of state and/or federal wage and hour laws (including alleged violations of meal and rest period laws and alleged misclassification issues), real estate disputes as well as other matters. Some of these suits purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. It is the opinion of the Company's management that although the amount of liability with respect to certain of the matters described herein cannot be ascertained at this time, any resulting liability of these and other matters, including any punitive damages, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or financial condition. The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made provisions where the loss contingency can be reasonably estimated and an adverse outcome is probable. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involves substantial uncertainties. Management currently believes that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss for the Company's exposure in excess of the amount accrued is expected to be immaterial to the Company. It remains possible that despite management's current belief, material differences in actual outcomes or changes in management's evaluation or predictions could arise that could have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Office of Inspector General: In January 2016, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (the "OIG") pertaining to the pricing of drugs offered under the Company's MyRxCare discount program and the impact on reimbursements to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE (the "Government Health Programs"). In particular, the OIG requested information on the relationship between the prices charged for drugs under the MyRxCare program and the "usual and customary" prices reported by the Company in claims for reimbursements to the Government Health Programs or other third-party payors. The Company cooperated with the OIG in the investigation. The Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Civil Investigative Demands: On December 16, 2016, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island in connection with a False Claims Act ("FCA") investigation relating to the Company's influenza vaccination programs. The investigation concerns whether the Company's provision of store coupons to its customers who received influenza vaccinations in its store pharmacies constituted an improper benefit to those customers under the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Company believes that its provision of the store coupons to its customers is an allowable incentive to encourage vaccinations. The Company cooperated with the U.S. Attorney in the investigation. The Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of possible loss, if any. The Company has received a civil investigative demand dated February 28, 2020 from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in connection with an FCA investigation relating to the Company's dispensing practices regarding insulin pen products. The investigation seeks documents regarding the Company's policies, practices and procedures, as well as dispensing data, among other things. The Company will cooperate with the U.S. Attorney in the investigation. The Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of possible loss, if any. Terraza/Lorenz: Two lawsuits were brought against Safeway and the Safeway Benefits Plan Committee (the "Benefit Plans Committee," and together with Safeway, the "Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants") and other third parties alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") with respect to Safeway's 401(k) Plan (the "Safeway 401(k) Plan"). On July 14, 2016, a complaint ("Terraza") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by a participant in the Safeway 401(k) Plan individually and on behalf of the Safeway 401(k) Plan. An amended complaint was filed on November 18, 2016. On August 25, 2016, a second complaint ("Lorenz") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by another participant in the Safeway 401(k) Plan individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants and against the Safeway 401(k) Plan's former record-keepers. An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2016, and a second amended complaint was filed on November 21, 2016. In general, both lawsuits alleged that the Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding the selection of investments offered under the Safeway 401(k) Plan and the fees and expenses related to those investments. All parties filed summary judgment motions which were heard and taken under submission on August 16, 2018. Plaintiffs' motions were denied, and defendants' motions were granted in part and denied in part. Bench trials for both matters were set for May 6, 2019. A settlement in principle was reached before trial. On September 13, 2019, settlement papers were filed with the Court along with a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing for preliminary approval was set for November 20, 2019, but the Court vacated the hearing. The Court issued an order on March 30, 2020 requesting some minor changes to the notice procedures, and plaintiffs submitted an amended motion for preliminary approval. On September 8, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs' amended motion, and a final approval hearing was held on April 26, 2021 at which time the Court took the matter under submission. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters. False Claims Act: Two qui tam actions alleging violations of the FCA have been filed against the Company and its subsidiaries. Violations of the FCA are subject to treble damages and penalties of up to a specified dollar amount per false claim. In United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relator alleges that Safeway overcharged government healthcare programs by not providing the government, as part of its usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers in pharmacy membership discount and price-matching programs. The relator filed his complaint under seal on November 11, 2011, and the complaint was unsealed on August 26, 2015. The relator amended the complaint on March 31, 2016. On June 12, 2020, the Court granted Safeway's motion for summary judgment, holding that the relator could not prove that Safeway acted with the intent required under the FCA, and judgment was issued on June 15, 2020. On July 10, 2020, the relator filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and to supplement the record, which Safeway opposed. On November 13, 2020, the Court denied relator's motion, and on December 11, 2020, relator filed a notice of appeal. In United States ex rel. Schutte and Yarberry v. SuperValu, New Albertson's, Inc., et al., also filed in the Central District of Illinois, the relators allege that defendants (including various subsidiaries of the Company) overcharged government healthcare programs by not providing the government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. On August 5, 2019, the Court granted relators' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that price-matched prices are the usual and customary prices for those drugs. On July 1, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the relator could not prove that defendants acted with the intent required under the FCA. Judgment was issued on July 2, 2020. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is now pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 19, 2021. In both of the above cases, the government previously investigated the relators' allegations and declined to intervene. The relators elected to pursue their respective cases on their own and in each case have alleged FCA damages in excess of $100 million before trebling and excluding penalties. The Company is vigorously defending each of these matters and believes each of these cases is without merit. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters. The Company was also subject to another FCA qui tam action entitled United States ex rel. Zelickowski v. Albertson's LLC. In that case, the relators alleged that Albertson's LLC ("Albertson's") overcharged federal healthcare programs by not providing the government, as a part of its usual and customary prices to the government, the benefit of discounts given to customers who enrolled in the Albertson's discount-club program. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on June 20, 2017. On December 17, 2018, the case was dismissed, without prejudice. Alaska Attorney General's Investigation: On May 22, 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alaska (the "Alaska Attorney General") stating that the Alaska Attorney General has reason to believe the Company has engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices under Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act and seeking documents regarding the Company's policies, procedures, controls, training, dispensing practices and other matters in connection with the sale and marketing of opioid pain medications. The Company responded to the subpoena on July 30, 2018 and has not received any further communication from the Alaska Attorney General. The Company does not currently have a basis to believe it has violated Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act; however, at this time, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Opioid Litigation: The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that defendants contributed to the national opioid epidemic. At present, the Company is named in over 70 suits pending in various state courts as well as in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where over 2,000 cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. In two matters--MDL No. 2804 filed by The Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and State of New Mexico v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.--the Company filed motions to dismiss, which were denied, and the Company has now answered the complaints. The MDL cases are stayed pending bellwether trials, and the only active matter is the New Mexico action where a September 2021 trial date has been set. The Company is vigorously defending these matters and believes that these cases are without merit. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. California Air Resources Board: Upon the inspection by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") of several of the Company's stores in California, it was determined that the Company failed certain paperwork and other administrative requirements. As a result of the inspections, the Company proactively undertook a broad evaluation of the record keeping and administrative practices at all of its stores in California. In connection with this evaluation, the Company retained a third party to conduct an audit and correct deficiencies identified across its California store base. The Company is working with CARB to resolve these compliance issues and comply with governing regulations, and that work is ongoing. CARB has made an opening demand regarding potential fines and penalties. The parties are in negotiations to reach a settlement. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. FACTA: On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. The Company has answered the complaint and is vigorously defending the matter. On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on February 24, 2020. The parties will seek court approval of the settlement. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter. Other Commitments In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various supply contracts to purchase products for resale and purchase and service contracts for fixed asset and information technology commitments. These contracts typically include volume commitments or fixed expiration dates, termination provisions and other standard contractual considerations.

California Department of Industrial Relations: On October 24, 2012, the Office of Self-Insurance Plans, a program within the director's office of the California Department of Industrial Relations (the "DIR"), notified SuperValu, which was then the owner of NALP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, that additional collateral was required to be posted in connection with the Company's, and certain other subsidiaries', California self-insured workers' compensation obligations pursuant to applicable regulations. The notice from the DIR stated that the additional collateral was required as a result of an increase in estimated future liabilities, as determined by the DIR pursuant to a review of the self-insured California workers' compensation claims with respect to the applicable businesses. On January 21, 2014, the Company entered into a Collateral Substitution Agreement with the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund to provide collateral. The collateral not covered by the California Self-Insurers' Security Fund is covered by an irrevocable LOC for the benefit of the State of California Office of Self-Insurance Plans. The amount of the LOC is adjusted annually based on semi-annual filings of an actuarial study reflecting liabilities as of December 31 of each year reduced by claim closures and settlements. The related LOC was $40.1 million as of February 27, 2021 and $90.3 million as of February 29, 2020.

Lease Guarantees: The Company may have liability under certain operating leases that were assigned to third parties. If any of these third parties fail to perform their obligations under the leases, the Company could be responsible for the lease obligation, including as a result of the economic dislocation caused by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the wide dispersion among third parties and the variety of remedies available, the Company believes that if an assignee became insolvent, it would not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject from time to time to various claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, including lawsuits involving trade practices, lawsuits alleging violations of state and/or federal wage and hour laws (including alleged violations of meal and rest period laws and alleged misclassification issues), real estate disputes as well as other matters. Some of these suits purport or may be determined to be class actions and/or seek substantial damages. It is the opinion of the Company's management that although the amount of liability with respect to certain of the matters described herein cannot be ascertained at this time, any resulting liability of these and other matters, including any punitive damages, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or financial condition.

The Company continually evaluates its exposure to loss contingencies arising from pending or threatened litigation and believes it has made provisions where the loss contingency can be reasonably estimated and an adverse outcome is probable. Nonetheless, assessing and predicting the outcomes of these matters involves substantial uncertainties. Management currently believes that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss for the Company's exposure in excess of the amount accrued is expected to be immaterial to the Company. It remains possible that despite management's current belief, material differences in actual outcomes or changes in management's evaluation or predictions could arise that could have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Office of Inspector General: In January 2016, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (the "OIG") pertaining to the pricing of drugs offered under the Company's MyRxCare discount program and the impact on reimbursements to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE (the "Government Health Programs"). In particular, the OIG requested information on the relationship between the prices charged for drugs under the MyRxCare program and the "usual and customary" prices reported by the Company in claims for reimbursements to the Government Health Programs or other third-party payors. The Company cooperated with the OIG in the investigation. The Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

Civil Investigative Demands: On December 16, 2016, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island in connection with a False Claims Act ("FCA") investigation relating to the Company's influenza vaccination programs. The investigation concerns whether the Company's provision of store coupons to its customers who received influenza vaccinations in its store pharmacies constituted an improper benefit to those customers under the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Company believes that its provision of the store coupons to its customers is an allowable incentive to encourage vaccinations. The Company cooperated with the U.S. Attorney in the investigation. The Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of possible loss, if any.

The Company has received a civil investigative demand dated February 28, 2020 from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in connection with an FCA investigation relating to the Company's dispensing practices regarding insulin pen products. The investigation seeks documents regarding the Company's policies, practices and procedures, as well as dispensing data, among other things. The Company will cooperate with the U.S. Attorney in the investigation. The Company is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of possible loss, if any.

Terraza/Lorenz: Two lawsuits were brought against Safeway and the Safeway Benefits Plan Committee (the "Benefit Plans Committee," and together with Safeway, the "Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants") and other third parties alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") with respect to Safeway's 401(k) Plan (the "Safeway 401(k) Plan"). On July 14, 2016, a complaint ("Terraza") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by a participant in the Safeway 401(k) Plan individually and on behalf of the Safeway 401(k) Plan. An amended complaint was filed on November 18, 2016. On August 25, 2016, a second complaint ("Lorenz") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by another participant in the Safeway 401(k) Plan individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants and against the Safeway 401(k) Plan's former record-keepers. An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2016, and a second amended complaint was filed on November 21, 2016. In general, both lawsuits alleged that the Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding the selection of investments offered under the Safeway 401(k) Plan and the fees and expenses related to those investments. All parties filed summary judgment motions which were heard and taken under submission on August 16, 2018. Plaintiffs' motions were denied, and defendants' motions were granted in part and denied in part. Bench trials for both matters were set for May 6, 2019. A settlement in principle was reached before trial. On September 13,

2019, settlement papers were filed with the Court along with a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing for preliminary approval was set for November 20, 2019, but the Court vacated the hearing. The Court issued an order on March 30, 2020 requesting some minor changes to the notice procedures, and plaintiffs submitted an amended motion for preliminary approval. On September 8, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs' amended motion, and a final approval hearing was held on April 26, 2021 at which time the Court took the matter under submission. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters.

In United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the relator alleges that Safeway overcharged government healthcare programs by not providing the government, as part of its usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers in pharmacy membership discount and price-matching programs. The relator filed his complaint under seal on November 11, 2011, and the complaint was unsealed on August 26, 2015. The relator amended the complaint on March 31, 2016. On June 12, 2020, the Court granted Safeway's motion for summary judgment, holding that the relator could not prove that Safeway acted with the intent required under the FCA, and judgment was issued on June 15, 2020. On July 10, 2020, the relator filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and to supplement the record, which Safeway opposed. On November 13, 2020, the Court denied relator's motion, and on December 11, 2020, relator filed a notice of appeal.

In United States ex rel. Schutte and Yarberry v. SuperValu, New Albertson's, Inc., et al., also filed in the Central District of Illinois, the relators allege that defendants (including various subsidiaries of the Company) overcharged government healthcare programs by not providing the government, as a part of usual and customary prices, the benefit of discounts given to customers who requested that defendants match competitor prices. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on November 30, 2015. On August 5, 2019, the Court granted relators' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that price-matched prices are the usual and customary prices for those drugs. On July 1, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the relator could not prove that defendants acted with the intent required under the FCA. Judgment was issued on July 2, 2020. On July 9, 2020, the relators filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is now pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 19, 2021.

In both of the above cases, the government previously investigated the relators' allegations and declined to intervene. The relators elected to pursue their respective cases on their own and in each case have alleged FCA damages in excess of $100 million before trebling and excluding penalties. The Company is vigorously defending each of these matters and believes each of these cases is without merit. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for these matters.

The Company was also subject to another FCA qui tam action entitled United States ex rel. Zelickowski v. Albertson's LLC. In that case, the relators alleged that Albertson's LLC ("Albertson's") overcharged federal healthcare programs by not providing the government, as a part of its usual and customary prices to the government, the benefit of discounts given to customers who enrolled in the Albertson's discount-club program. The complaint was originally filed under seal and amended on June 20, 2017. On December 17, 2018, the case was dismissed, without prejudice.

Alaska Attorney General's Investigation: On May 22, 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alaska (the "Alaska Attorney General") stating that the Alaska Attorney General has reason to believe the Company has engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices under Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act and seeking documents regarding the Company's policies, procedures, controls, training, dispensing practices and other matters in connection with the sale and marketing of opioid pain medications. The Company responded to the subpoena on July 30, 2018 and has not received any further

Opioid Litigation: The Company is one of dozens of companies that have been named in various lawsuits alleging that defendants contributed to the national opioid epidemic. At present, the Company is named in over 70 suits pending in various state courts as well as in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where over 2,000 cases have been consolidated as Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. In two matters--MDL No. 2804 filed by The Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and State of New Mexico v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.--the Company filed motions to dismiss, which were denied, and the Company has now answered the complaints. The MDL cases are stayed pending bellwether trials, and the only active matter is the New Mexico action where a September 2021 trial date has been set. The Company is vigorously defending these matters and believes that these cases are without merit. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these matters or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

California Air Resources Board: Upon the inspection by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") of several of the Company's stores in California, it was determined that the Company failed certain paperwork and other administrative requirements. As a result of the inspections, the Company proactively undertook a broad evaluation of the record keeping and administrative practices at all of its stores in California. In connection with this evaluation, the Company retained a third party to conduct an audit and correct deficiencies identified across its California store base. The Company is working with CARB to resolve these compliance issues and comply with governing regulations, and that work is ongoing. CARB has made an opening demand regarding potential fines and penalties. The parties are in negotiations to reach a settlement. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.

FACTA: On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. The Company has answered the complaint and is vigorously defending the matter. On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on February 24, 2020. The parties will seek court approval of the settlement. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.