Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Aug. 02, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Environmental Matters New York State Environmental Matters In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The Company undertook the IRM and RIFS voluntarily, without admitting liability or accepting responsibility for any future remediation of the site. The Company has completed the IRM and the RIFS. In the course of preparing the RIFS, the Company identified remedial alternatives with estimated undiscounted costs ranging from $0.0 million to $24.0 million, excluding amounts previously expended or provided for by the Company. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which has assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision requires a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-site chemical oxidation at an estimated present cost of approximately $10.7 million. In July 2009, the Company agreed to a Consent Order with the EPA requiring the Company to perform certain remediation actions, operations, maintenance and monitoring at the site. In September 2009, a Consent Judgment embodying the Consent Order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Village of Garden City, New York (the "Village"), has additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimates at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it, which the complaint alleges could exceed $41 million, undiscounted, over a 70-year period. The Company has not verified the estimates of either historic or future costs asserted by the Village, but believes that an estimate of future costs based on a 70-year remediation period is unreasonable given the expected remedial period reflected in the EPA's Record of Decision. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Village's complaint on grounds including applicable statutes of limitation and preemption of certain claims by the NYSDEC's and the EPA's diligent prosecution of remediation. On January 27, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff's complaint except for the CERCLA claim and a state law claim for indemnity for costs incurred after November 27, 2000. On September 23, 2009, on a motion for reconsideration by the Village, the Court reinstated the claims for injunctive relief under RCRA and for equitable relief under certain of the state law theories. The Company intends to continue to defend the action if an acceptable settlement agreement cannot be reached. Note 9 Legal Proceedings, Continued Whitehall Environmental Matters The Company has performed sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater and waste management areas at the Company's former Volunteer Leather Company facility in Whitehall, Michigan. In October 2010, the Company and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment entered into a Consent Decree providing for implementation of a remedial Work Plan for the facility site designed to bring the site into compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The Work Plan's implementation is substantially complete and the Company expects, based on its present understanding of the condition of the site, that its future obligations with respect to the site will be limited to periodic monitoring and that future costs related to the site should not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Accrual for Environmental Contingencies Related to all outstanding environmental contingencies, the Company had accrued $11.9 million as of August 2, 2014, February 1, 2014 and August 3, 2013. All such provisions reflect the Company's estimates of the most likely cost (undiscounted, including both current and noncurrent portions) of resolving the contingencies, based on facts and circumstances as of the time they were made. There is no assurance that relevant facts and circumstances will not change, necessitating future changes to the provisions. Such contingent liabilities are included in the liability arising from provision for discontinued operations on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because it relates to former facilities operated by the Company. The Company has made pretax accruals for certain of these contingencies, including approximately $0.2 million reflected in each of the second quarters of Fiscal 2015 and 2014 and approximately $0.4 million in each of the first six months of Fiscal 2015 and 2014. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates. Other Matters On December 10, 2010, the Company announced that it had suffered a criminal intrusion into the portion of its computer network that processes payments for transactions in certain of its retail stores. Visa, Inc., MasterCard Worldwide and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. asserted claims totaling approximately $15.6 million in connection with the intrusion and the claims of two of the claimants have been collected by withholding payment card receivables of the Company. In the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2013, the Company recorded a $15.4 million charge to earnings in connection with the disputed liability. On March 7, 2013, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa Inc. and Visa International Service Association seeking to recover $13.3 million in non-compliance fines and issuer reimbursement assessments collected from the Company in connection with the intrusion. The Company does not currently expect any future claims in connection with the intrusion to have a material effect on its financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. On May 14, 2012, a putative class and collective action, Maro v. Hat World, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action alleges that the Company failed to pay the plaintiff and other, similarly situated retail store employees of Hat World, Inc., for time spent making bank deposits of store collections, and seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, Note 9 Legal Proceedings, Continued attorneys fees, and costs pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. On January 15, 2014, the court dismissed the Maro case with prejudice, based on the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute. On July 16, 2012 and July 30, 2012, additional putative class and collective actions, Chavez v. Hat World, Inc. and Dismukes v. Hat World, Inc., were filed in the same court, alleging that certain Hat World employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, and seeking similar relief. The Chavez and Dismukes actions have been consolidated. The parties have reached agreement on a proposed settlement, which the court preliminarily approved on May 9, 2014. The court granted final approval on September 5, 2014. The Company does not expect the matter or its settlement as proposed to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. On August 30, 2012, a former employee of a Company subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Kershner v. Hat World, Inc., in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by the subsidiary. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the matter. On May 29, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement. On May 23, 2013, a former employee of the Company filed an action, Everett v. Genesco Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking designation as a collective action and the award of allegedly unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company disputes the material allegations in the action and intends to defend it. On May 17, 2013, a former employee filed a putative class and representative action, Garcia v. Genesco, Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura, alleging various claims under the California Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition and violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act of 2004, and seeking unspecified damages and penalties. On August 30, 2013, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has reached an agreement in principle, subject to court approval, to settle the matter. The Company does not expect the matter or its settlement as proposed to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations. In addition to the matters specifically described in this Note, the Company is a party to other legal and regulatory proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. While management does not believe that the Company's liability with respect to any of these other matters is likely to have a material effect on its financial position, cash flows, or results of operations, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business and results of operations.

Legal Proceedings

Environmental Matters

New York State Environmental Matters

In August 1997, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the Company entered into a consent order whereby the Company assumed responsibility for conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RIFS”) and implementing an interim remedial measure (“IRM”) with regard to the site of a knitting mill operated by a former subsidiary of the Company from 1965 to 1969. The Company undertook the IRM and RIFS voluntarily, without admitting liability or accepting responsibility for any future remediation of the site. The Company has completed the IRM and the RIFS. In the course of preparing the RIFS, the Company identified remedial alternatives with estimated undiscounted costs ranging from $0.0 million to $24.0 million, excluding amounts previously expended or provided for by the Company. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which has assumed primary regulatory responsibility for the site from NYSDEC, issued a Record of Decision in September 2007. The Record of Decision requires a remedy of a combination of groundwater extraction and treatment and in-site chemical oxidation at an estimated present cost of approximately $10.7 million.

In July 2009, the Company agreed to a Consent Order with the EPA requiring the Company to perform certain remediation actions, operations, maintenance and monitoring at the site. In September 2009, a Consent Judgment embodying the Consent Order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Village of Garden City, New York (the "Village"), has additionally asserted that the Company is liable for the costs associated with enhanced treatment required by the impact of the groundwater plume from the site on two public water supply wells, including historical costs ranging from approximately $1.8 million to in excess of $2.5 million, and future operation and maintenance costs which the Village estimates at $126,400 annually while the enhanced treatment continues. On December 14, 2007, the Village filed a complaint against the Company and the owner of the property under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) as well as a number of state law theories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate contamination from the site and to establish their liability for future costs that may be incurred in connection with it, which the complaint alleges could exceed $41 million, undiscounted, over a 70-year period.

The Company has not verified the estimates of either historic or future costs asserted by the Village, but believes that an estimate of future costs based on a 70-year remediation period is unreasonable given the expected remedial period reflected in the EPA's Record of Decision. On May 23, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Village's complaint on grounds including applicable statutes of limitation and preemption of certain claims by the NYSDEC's and the EPA's diligent prosecution of remediation. On January 27, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff's complaint except for the CERCLA claim and a state law claim for indemnity for costs incurred after November 27, 2000. On September 23, 2009, on a motion for reconsideration by the Village, the Court reinstated the claims for injunctive relief under RCRA and for equitable relief under certain of the state law theories. The Company intends to continue to defend the action if an acceptable settlement agreement cannot be reached.

Note 9

Legal Proceedings, Continued

Whitehall Environmental Matters

The Company has performed sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater and waste management areas at the Company's former Volunteer Leather Company facility in Whitehall, Michigan.

In October 2010, the Company and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment entered into a Consent Decree providing for implementation of a remedial Work Plan for the facility site designed to bring the site into compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The Work Plan's implementation is substantially complete and the Company expects, based on its present understanding of the condition of the site, that its future obligations with respect to the site will be limited to periodic monitoring and that future costs related to the site should not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Accrual for Environmental Contingencies

Related to all outstanding environmental contingencies, the Company had accrued $11.9 million as of August 2, 2014, February 1, 2014 and August 3, 2013. All such provisions reflect the Company's estimates of the most likely cost (undiscounted, including both current and noncurrent portions) of resolving the contingencies, based on facts and circumstances as of the time they were made. There is no assurance that relevant facts and circumstances will not change, necessitating future changes to the provisions. Such contingent liabilities are included in the liability arising from provision for discontinued operations on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because it relates to former facilities operated by the Company. The Company has made pretax accruals for certain of these contingencies, including approximately $0.2 million reflected in each of the second quarters of Fiscal 2015 and 2014 and approximately $0.4 million in each of the first six months of Fiscal 2015 and 2014. These charges are included in provision for discontinued operations, net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and represent changes in estimates.

Other Matters

On December 10, 2010, the Company announced that it had suffered a criminal intrusion into the portion of its computer network that processes payments for transactions in certain of its retail stores. Visa, Inc., MasterCard Worldwide and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. asserted claims totaling approximately $15.6 million in connection with the intrusion and the claims of two of the claimants have been collected by withholding payment card receivables of the Company. In the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2013, the Company recorded a $15.4 million charge to earnings in connection with the disputed liability. On March 7, 2013, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa Inc. and Visa International Service Association seeking to recover $13.3 million in non-compliance fines and issuer reimbursement assessments collected from the Company in connection with the intrusion. The Company does not currently expect any future claims in connection with the intrusion to have a material effect on its financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

On May 14, 2012, a putative class and collective action, Maro v. Hat World, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The action alleges that the Company failed to pay the plaintiff and other, similarly situated retail store employees of Hat World, Inc., for time spent making bank deposits of store collections, and seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,

Note 9

Legal Proceedings, Continued

attorneys fees, and costs pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. On January 15, 2014, the court dismissed the Maro case with prejudice, based on the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute. On July 16, 2012 and July 30, 2012, additional putative class and collective actions, Chavez v. Hat World, Inc. and Dismukes v. Hat World, Inc., were filed in the same court, alleging that certain Hat World employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, and seeking similar relief. The Chavez and Dismukes actions have been consolidated. The parties have reached agreement on a proposed settlement, which the court preliminarily approved on May 9, 2014. The court granted final approval on September 5, 2014. The Company does not expect the matter or its settlement as proposed to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

On August 30, 2012, a former employee of a Company subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Kershner v. Hat World, Inc., in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by the subsidiary. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the matter. On May 29, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement.

On May 23, 2013, a former employee of the Company filed an action, Everett v. Genesco Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking designation as a collective action and the award of allegedly unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company disputes the material allegations in the action and intends to defend it.

On May 17, 2013, a former employee filed a putative class and representative action, Garcia v. Genesco, Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura, alleging various claims under the California Labor Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition and violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act of 2004, and seeking unspecified damages and penalties. On August 30, 2013, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company has reached an agreement in principle, subject to court approval, to settle the matter. The Company does not expect the matter or its settlement as proposed to have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

In addition to the matters specifically described in this Note, the Company is a party to other legal and regulatory proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. While management does not believe that the Company's liability with respect to any of these other matters is likely to have a material effect on its financial position, cash flows, or results of operations, legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business and results of operations.