Litigation	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	12. LITIGATION Environmental Matters – In March 2016, the Company received a General Notice Letter for the Lane Street Groundwater Superfund Site (the “Lane Street Site”) located in Elkhart, Indiana from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In April 2016, the EPA issued their proposed clean-up plan for groundwater pollution and request for public comment. The Company responded to the request for public comment in May 2016. The EPA issued a Record Decision selecting a remedy in August 2016 and estimated total costs to remediate of $3.6 million. In July 2017, the EPA issued a Special Notice Letter to the Company demanding that the Company perform the remedy selected and pay for the remediation cost and past response costs of $5.5 million. On October 12, 2017, the Company, after consultation with its insurance carriers, offered an amount, fully reimbursable by insurance coverage, to the EPA to resolve this matter. On November 6, 2017, the settlement offer extended on October 12, 2017 was rejected. In April 2018, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action (the “Order”) against the Company. The Order was issued under Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9606(a). The Order directs the Company to perform remedial design and remedial action for the Lane Street Site. The Order was to be effective May 29, 2018. To ensure completion of the remediation work, the EPA required the Company to secure financial assurance in the initial amount of $3.6 million, which as noted above, is the estimated cost of remedial work. The Company believes that financial assurance is not required because it meets the relevant financial test criteria as provided in the Order. In May 2018, the EPA agreed to suspend enforcement of the Order so that the Company could conduct environmental testing upgradient to its former manufacturing location pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). On July 5, 2018, the EPA proposed a draft AOC, to which the Company provided revisions. During the latter part of 2018, Flexsteel submitted to the EPA its proposed work plan for the upgradient testing to be conducted pursuant to the draft AOC. The EPA provided comments on that documentation on December 4, 2018. On January 23, 2019, Flexsteel submitted responses to the EPA’s comments and revised work plan documents. On April 24, 2019, the Company signed the finalized AOC with the EPA to conduct the upgradient investigation. The Company reflected a $3.6 million liability in the consolidated financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. Despite the Company’s position that it did not cause nor contribute to the contamination, the Company continues to reflect this liability in the consolidated financials for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 in accordance with FASB issued Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations (ASC 410-30). The Company continues to evaluate the Order, its legal options and insurance coverages to assert its defense and recovery of current and future expenses related to this matter. Indiana Civil Litigation – In December 2013, the Company entered into a confidential agreement to settle the Indiana Civil Litigation. The Company paid $6.25 million to Plaintiffs to settle the matter without admission of wrongdoing. During fiscal year 2017, the recovery of litigation settlement and defense costs from insurance carriers was completed. During fiscal year 2018, the Company recorded no expenses or expense reimbursements related to the Indiana Civil Litigation in the consolidated statements of income. The Company received $1.2 million during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 for recovery of litigation settlement costs from insurers. These amounts are recorded as “Litigation settlement (costs) reimbursements” in the consolidated statements of income. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded $0.3 million in legal and other related expenses that were incurred responding to the lawsuits and pursuing insurance coverage. These expenses are included in SG&A expense in the consolidated statements of income. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Company received approximately $1.2 million from insurance carriers to reimburse the Company for certain legal defense costs. These reimbursement amounts are recorded in SG&A as a reduction of legal expenses. Employment matters – The lawsuit entitled Juan Hernandez, et al. v. Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (“Hernandez I”), was filed on February 21, 2019 in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside by former employees Juan Hernandez and Richard Diaz (together, “Plaintiffs”). Flexsteel removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 25, 2019. Through their attorneys, Plaintiffs allege a series of wage-and-hour claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay final wages; (7) failure to reimburse for all business expenses; and (8) unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek to bring these eight causes of action on behalf of a proposed class of all current and former employees who held a non-exempt, hourly position in California since March 25, 2015. On April 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second and similarly titled lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside (“Hernandez II”). Hernandez II is brought by the same attorneys as Hernandez I and features a single cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiffs seek to bring the PAGA cause of action on behalf of a proposed group of all current and former employees who held a non-exempt, hourly position in California since February 21, 2018. The Hernandez I case is still in the early stages, with the parties agreeing to defer most activities, including the exchange of initial rounds of written discovery, in an effort to explore a potential early resolution of this matter. Hernandez II was only recently filed, and Flexsteel has not yet filed its responsive pleading. In connection with the closure of its manufacturing facility in Riverside, California, Flexsteel obtained individual releases of claims from approximately 53 persons who would otherwise be part of the class. Flexsteel agreed with Plaintiffs to engage in a full-day mediation with third-party mediator on August 14, 2019. Those mediation efforts were ultimately successful, with Flexsteel agreeing to resolve both Hernandez I and Hernandez II in principle and on a class-wide basis for $0.5 million. That settlement will serve to resolve the claims of the two Plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 270 remaining members of the class and unless an individual class member asks to be excluded. At present, the material terms of the settlement are captured in a Memorandum of Agreement, which will be supplemented in the next 30-to-90 days with a long-form Stipulation of Settlement. Flexsteel anticipates that obtaining final approval of the parties’ settlement from the court will take at least six months and potentially longer, such that any settlement payments will not be made until calendar year 2020. The settlement amount of $0.5 million, however, has been accrued during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. Other Proceedings – From time to time, the Company is subject to various other legal proceedings, including lawsuits, which arise out of, and are incidental to, the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company does not consider any of such other proceedings that are currently pending, individually or in the aggregate, to be material to its business or likely to result in a material effect on its consolidated operating results, financial condition, or cash flows.

12. LITIGATION

Environmental Matters – In March 2016, the Company received a General Notice Letter for the Lane Street Groundwater Superfund Site (the “Lane Street Site”) located in Elkhart, Indiana from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In April 2016, the EPA issued their proposed clean-up plan for groundwater pollution and request for public comment. The Company responded to the request for public comment in May 2016. The EPA issued a Record Decision selecting a remedy in August 2016 and estimated total costs to remediate of $3.6 million. In July 2017, the EPA issued a Special Notice Letter to the Company demanding that the Company perform the remedy selected and pay for the remediation cost and past response costs of $5.5 million. On October 12, 2017, the Company, after consultation with its insurance carriers, offered an amount, fully reimbursable by insurance coverage, to the EPA to resolve this matter. On November 6, 2017, the settlement offer extended on October 12, 2017 was rejected.

In April 2018, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action (the “Order”) against the Company. The Order was issued under Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9606(a). The Order directs the Company to perform remedial design and remedial action for the Lane Street Site. The Order was to be effective May 29, 2018. To ensure completion of the remediation work, the EPA required the Company to secure financial assurance in the initial amount of $3.6 million, which as noted above, is the estimated cost of remedial work. The Company believes that financial assurance is not required because it meets the relevant financial test criteria as provided in the Order. In May 2018, the EPA agreed to suspend enforcement of the Order so that the Company could conduct environmental testing upgradient to its former manufacturing location pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). On July 5, 2018, the EPA proposed a draft AOC, to which the Company provided revisions. During the latter part of 2018, Flexsteel submitted to the EPA its proposed work plan for the upgradient testing to be conducted pursuant to the draft AOC. The EPA provided comments on that documentation on December 4, 2018. On January 23, 2019, Flexsteel submitted responses to the EPA’s comments and revised work plan documents. On April 24, 2019, the Company signed the finalized AOC with the EPA to conduct the upgradient investigation. The Company reflected a $3.6 million liability in the consolidated financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. Despite the Company’s position that it did not cause nor contribute to the contamination, the Company continues to reflect this liability in the consolidated financials for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 in accordance with FASB issued Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations (ASC 410-30). The Company continues to evaluate the Order, its legal options and insurance coverages to assert its defense and recovery of current and future expenses related to this matter.

Indiana Civil Litigation – In December 2013, the Company entered into a confidential agreement to settle the Indiana Civil Litigation. The Company paid $6.25 million to Plaintiffs to settle the matter without admission of wrongdoing. During fiscal year 2017, the recovery of litigation settlement and defense costs from insurance carriers was completed. During fiscal year 2018, the Company recorded no expenses or expense reimbursements related to the Indiana Civil Litigation in the consolidated statements of income. The Company received $1.2 million during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 for recovery of litigation settlement costs from insurers. These amounts are recorded as “Litigation settlement (costs) reimbursements” in the consolidated statements of income.

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded $0.3 million in legal and other related expenses that were incurred responding to the lawsuits and pursuing insurance coverage. These expenses are included in SG&A expense in the consolidated statements of income.

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Company received approximately $1.2 million from insurance carriers to reimburse the Company for certain legal defense costs. These reimbursement amounts are recorded in SG&A as a reduction of legal expenses.

Employment matters – The lawsuit entitled Juan Hernandez, et al. v. Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (“Hernandez I”), was filed on February 21, 2019 in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside by former employees Juan Hernandez and Richard Diaz (together, “Plaintiffs”). Flexsteel removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 25, 2019. Through their attorneys, Plaintiffs allege a series of wage-and-hour claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay final wages; (7) failure to reimburse for all business expenses; and (8) unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek to bring these eight causes of action on behalf of a proposed class of all current and former employees who held a non-exempt, hourly position in California since March 25, 2015.

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second and similarly titled lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside (“Hernandez II”). Hernandez II is brought by the same attorneys as Hernandez I and features a single cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiffs seek to bring the PAGA cause of action on behalf of a proposed group of all current and former employees who held a non-exempt, hourly position in California since February 21, 2018.

The Hernandez I case is still in the early stages, with the parties agreeing to defer most activities, including the exchange of initial rounds of written discovery, in an effort to explore a potential early resolution of this matter. Hernandez II was only recently filed, and Flexsteel has not yet filed its responsive pleading.

In connection with the closure of its manufacturing facility in Riverside, California, Flexsteel obtained individual releases of claims from approximately 53 persons who would otherwise be part of the class.

Flexsteel agreed with Plaintiffs to engage in a full-day mediation with third-party mediator on August 14, 2019. Those mediation efforts were ultimately successful, with Flexsteel agreeing to resolve both Hernandez I and Hernandez II in principle and on a class-wide basis for $0.5 million. That settlement will serve to resolve the claims of the two Plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 270 remaining members of the class and unless an individual class member asks to be excluded.

At present, the material terms of the settlement are captured in a Memorandum of Agreement, which will be supplemented in the next 30-to-90 days with a long-form Stipulation of Settlement. Flexsteel anticipates that obtaining final approval of the parties’ settlement from the court will take at least six months and potentially longer, such that any settlement payments will not be made until calendar year 2020. The settlement amount of $0.5 million, however, has been accrued during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019.

Other Proceedings – From time to time, the Company is subject to various other legal proceedings, including lawsuits, which arise out of, and are incidental to, the conduct of the Company’s business. The Company does not consider any of such other proceedings that are currently pending, individually or in the aggregate, to be material to its business or likely to result in a material effect on its consolidated operating results, financial condition, or cash flows.