Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	16. Contingencies On January 28, 2020, Martin B. Bloch, the former Chief Scientist of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board, filed a complaint against the Company and Jonathan Brolin, Lance W. Lord, Russell M. Sarachek, Richard Schwartz and Stanton D. Sloane, each in their capacity as members of the Board (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., et al., Index No. 601369/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2020)). Mr. Bloch sought compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees, among other things, based on allegations that he was wrongfully terminated “for cause” pursuant to his employment agreement, dated March 17, 2008 and that the Company and the Director Defendants discriminated against him based on his age. Mr. Bloch originally also sought a declaratory judgment and asserted claims for defamation and a derivative claim, purportedly on behalf of the Company alleging that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in rendering their decision to terminate Mr. Bloch’s employment with the Company. However, Mr. Bloch withdrew these claims from a subsequently filed amended complaint after the Company and the Director Defendants moved to dismiss them. On June 11, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Mr. Bloch filed a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2020. Mr. Bloch’s motion sought an order that the Company was liable for breach of his employment agreement because he purportedly resigned from the Company before he was terminated. On July 10, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants opposed Mr. Bloch’s motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims in Mr. Bloch’s amended complaint. On September 23, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Bloch’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted the Company and the Director Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, except for one claim for breach of contract against the Company. On October 23, 2020, the Company filed a brief with the Appellate Division, Second Department, seeking a reversal of the lower court’s order to the extent that it denied the Company’s summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim. Mr. Bloch filed its responsive brief on November 20, 2020. The appeal is currently pending. The Company believes that the Board was justified in its decision to terminate Mr. Bloch “for cause” and that Mr. Bloch’s single surviving claim is entirely without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of Mr. Bloch’s allegations. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine whether liability, if any, arising out of these matters is probable or the possible loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome arising out of these matters. In addition, Mr. Bloch has initiated two arbitration proceedings under the AAA Rules (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Frequency Electronics, Inc., and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008). One arbitration purports to be brought under a deferred compensation agreement dated March 27, 1980 and the other under a second amended and restated deferred compensation agreement, dated March 7, 2008. Bloch submitted his Statement of Claim in one arbitration on May 4, 2020, and in the other arbitration on May 6, 2020. In each proceeding, Mr. Bloch claims that defendants violated ERISA rules by denying him deferred compensation benefits. He seeks an award for allegedly past due deferred compensation benefits plus interest, clarification as to his future rights to deferred compensation benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a petition for a stay of arbitration and related declaratory relief against Mr. Bloch, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 652191/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 2, 2020)). The Company claims that Mr. Bloch may not arbitrate his claims for deferred compensation because he did not timely appeal the Company’s denial of those claims, and because he failed to comply with the arbitration procedures in the applicable deferred compensation agreement. Mr. Bloch filed a motion on June 16, 2020 seeking a change of venue to the County of Nassau, which the Company opposed on July 7, 2020. The Court granted Mr. Bloch’s motion on September 8, 2020. The case was therefore transferred to the County of Nassau, and assigned to the same Judge hearing the other cases between the parties (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 611405/2020). In its order dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court denied the Company’s petition for a stay of arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. The Company appealed the court’s denial of its petition to stay arbitration on May 7, 2021. The appeal is currently pending. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the likelihood of success of this appeal. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Bloch filed a petition against the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008, as amended (“Respondents”), for the appointment of an arbitrator in one of the arbitration proceedings that Mr. Bloch initiated. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc. et al., Index No. 605380/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 5, 2020)). On June 22, 2020, Respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Bloch’s petition, and he opposed the motion on July 2, 2020. In its orders dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court granted Mr. Bloch’s petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss that petition, and denied a motion previously filed by the Company for an interim stay of arbitration. On May 11, 2021, Respondents appealed the Court’s decision granting Mr. Bloch’s petition for the appointment of an arbitrator and denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss that petition. The appeal is currently pending. Respondents dispute all of Bloch’s claims and intend to continue to vigorously defend the Company in the appeal. The likelihood of any outcome of this appeal cannot be determined at this time. The arbitration panel in the arbitrations initiated by Mr. Bloch was constituted in March 2021. The same panel serves in both arbitrations. On May 6, 2021, Respondents submitted a motion to dismiss the arbitrations on the grounds that Mr. Bloch’s claims are not arbitrable. The motion is fully briefed. The Panel heard oral argument on the motion on June 22, 2021, but has not yet ruled on it. Respondents dispute Mr. Bloch’s claims and intend to defend the arbitrations vigorously. The likelihood of any outcome of these arbitration proceedings cannot be determined at this time.

16. Contingencies

On January 28, 2020, Martin B. Bloch, the former Chief Scientist of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board, filed a complaint against the Company and Jonathan Brolin, Lance W. Lord, Russell M. Sarachek, Richard Schwartz and Stanton D. Sloane, each in their capacity as members of the Board (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., et al., Index No. 601369/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2020)). Mr. Bloch sought compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees, among other things, based on allegations that he was wrongfully terminated “for cause” pursuant to his employment agreement, dated March 17, 2008 and that the Company and the Director Defendants discriminated against him based on his age. Mr. Bloch originally also sought a declaratory judgment and asserted claims for defamation and a derivative claim, purportedly on behalf of the Company alleging that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in rendering their decision to terminate Mr. Bloch’s employment with the Company. However, Mr. Bloch withdrew these claims from a subsequently filed amended complaint after the Company and the Director Defendants moved to dismiss them. On June 11, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Mr. Bloch filed a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2020. Mr. Bloch’s motion sought an order that the Company was liable for breach of his employment agreement because he purportedly resigned from the Company before he was terminated. On July 10, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants opposed Mr. Bloch’s motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims in Mr. Bloch’s amended complaint. On September 23, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Bloch’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted the Company and the Director Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, except for one claim for breach of contract against the Company. On October 23, 2020, the Company filed a brief with the Appellate Division, Second Department, seeking a reversal of the lower court’s order to the extent that it denied the Company’s summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim. Mr. Bloch filed its responsive brief on November 20, 2020. The appeal is currently pending. The Company believes that the Board was justified in its decision to terminate Mr. Bloch “for cause” and that Mr. Bloch’s single surviving claim is entirely without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of Mr. Bloch’s allegations. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine whether liability, if any, arising out of these matters is probable or the possible loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome arising out of these matters.

In addition, Mr. Bloch has initiated two arbitration proceedings under the AAA Rules (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Frequency Electronics, Inc., and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008). One arbitration purports to be brought under a deferred compensation agreement dated March 27, 1980 and the other under a second amended and restated deferred compensation agreement, dated March 7, 2008. Bloch submitted his Statement of Claim in one arbitration on May 4, 2020, and in the other arbitration on May 6, 2020. In each proceeding, Mr. Bloch claims that defendants violated ERISA rules by denying him deferred compensation benefits. He seeks an award for allegedly past due deferred compensation benefits plus interest, clarification as to his future rights to deferred compensation benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a petition for a stay of arbitration and related declaratory relief against Mr. Bloch, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 652191/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 2, 2020)). The Company claims that Mr. Bloch may not arbitrate his claims for deferred compensation because he did not timely appeal the Company’s denial of those claims, and because he failed to comply with the arbitration procedures in the applicable deferred compensation agreement. Mr. Bloch filed a motion on June 16, 2020 seeking a change of venue to the County of Nassau, which the Company opposed on July 7, 2020. The Court granted Mr. Bloch’s motion on September 8, 2020. The case was therefore transferred to the County of Nassau, and assigned to the same Judge hearing the other cases between the parties (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 611405/2020). In its order dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court denied the Company’s petition for a stay of arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. The Company appealed the court’s denial of its petition to stay arbitration on May 7, 2021. The appeal is currently pending. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the likelihood of success of this appeal.

On June 5, 2020, Mr. Bloch filed a petition against the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008, as amended (“Respondents”), for the appointment of an arbitrator in one of the arbitration proceedings that Mr. Bloch initiated. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc. et al., Index No. 605380/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 5, 2020)). On June 22, 2020, Respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Bloch’s petition, and he opposed the motion on July 2, 2020. In its orders dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court granted Mr. Bloch’s petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss that petition, and denied a motion previously filed by the Company for an interim stay of arbitration. On May 11, 2021, Respondents appealed the Court’s decision granting Mr. Bloch’s petition for the appointment of an arbitrator and denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss that petition. The appeal is currently pending. Respondents dispute all of Bloch’s claims and intend to continue to vigorously defend the Company in the appeal. The likelihood of any outcome of this appeal cannot be determined at this time.

The arbitration panel in the arbitrations initiated by Mr. Bloch was constituted in March 2021. The same panel serves in both arbitrations. On May 6, 2021, Respondents submitted a motion to dismiss the arbitrations on the grounds that Mr. Bloch’s claims are not arbitrable. The motion is fully briefed. The Panel heard oral argument on the motion on June 22, 2021, but has not yet ruled on it. Respondents dispute Mr. Bloch’s claims and intend to defend the arbitrations vigorously. The likelihood of any outcome of these arbitration proceedings cannot be determined at this time.