Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Obligations As of September 27, 2011, the Company guaranteed operating leases of 26 franchisee or affiliate locations, which the Company accounted for in accordance with the accounting standard for guarantees. These leases have terms expiring on various dates from October 31, 2011 to December 31, 2023 and a potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $22.6 million as of September 27, 2011. The obligations under these leases generally decrease over time as these operating leases expire. The Company has not recorded a liability for certain of these guarantees as they arose prior to the implementation of the accounting standard for guarantees and, unless modified, are exempt from its requirements. The Company has not recorded a liability for those guarantees issued after the effective date of this accounting standard because the fair value of each such lease guarantee was determined by the Company to be insignificant based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each such lease and each such franchisee’s performance, and the Company did not believe it was probable it would be required to perform under any guarantees at the time the guarantees were issued. The Company has not had to make any payments related to any of these guaranteed leases. The applicable franchisees or affiliates have primary liability for these operating leases. Legal Proceedings On January 25, 2008 and February 26, 2008, purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of the Company’s current or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock during the period between November 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006. Both lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division. Each complaint alleged that the Company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s disclosure of system-wide net sales and earnings guidance during the period from November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2006. Each complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead plaintiff. On August 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the class period to November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2007. Following the filing of motions by both parties and hearings before the Court, on February 11, 2011, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company’s primary directors and officers liability insurer deposited $5.7 million into a settlement fund for payment to class members, plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs of administering the settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. On June 22, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order dismissing the class action lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement and dismissal became final on July 22, 2011. On February 22, 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against the Company as nominal defendant and against certain of its current or former officers and certain current directors. The lawsuit was filed by Paul Pashcetto in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment between November 5, 2006 and February 22, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, an order requiring the Company to implement certain corporate governance reforms, restitution from the defendants and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. Following the filing of motions by both parties and hearings before the Court, on February 22, 2011, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the shareholder derivative lawsuit. Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company agreed, among other things, to implement and maintain certain corporate governance additions, modifications and/or formalizations, and its insurer paid plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses of $1.4 million. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. On April 8, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order dismissing the shareholder derivative lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement and dismissal became final on May 8, 2011. On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa. On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and its subsidiary have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective, and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company, and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the claims asserted against the Company and its subsidiary. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. In addition, the Company is subject to other routine legal proceedings, claims, and litigation in the ordinary course of its business. Defending lawsuits requires significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation, including the matters described above, is inherently uncertain. The Company does not, however, currently expect that the costs to resolve these matters individually and in the aggregate will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Other The Company is subject to on-going federal and state income tax audits and sales tax audits and any unfavorable rulings could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. The Company believes reserves for these matters are adequately provided for in its consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Obligations

As of September 27, 2011, the Company guaranteed operating leases of 26 franchisee or affiliate locations, which the Company accounted for in accordance with the accounting standard for guarantees. These leases have terms expiring on various dates from October 31, 2011 to December 31, 2023 and a potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $22.6 million as of September 27, 2011. The obligations under these leases generally decrease over time as these operating leases expire. The Company has not recorded a liability for certain of these guarantees as they arose prior to the implementation of the accounting standard for guarantees and, unless modified, are exempt from its requirements. The Company has not recorded a liability for those guarantees issued after the effective date of this accounting standard because the fair value of each such lease guarantee was determined by the Company to be insignificant based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each such lease and each such franchisee’s performance, and the Company did not believe it was probable it would be required to perform under any guarantees at the time the guarantees were issued. The Company has not had to make any payments related to any of these guaranteed leases. The applicable franchisees or affiliates have primary liability for these operating leases.

Legal Proceedings

On January 25, 2008 and February 26, 2008, purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of the Company’s current or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock during the period between November 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006. Both lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division. Each complaint alleged that the Company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s disclosure of system-wide net sales and earnings guidance during the period from November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2006. Each complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead plaintiff. On August 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the class period to November 1, 2005 through July 26, 2007. Following the filing of motions by both parties and hearings before the Court, on February 11, 2011, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company’s primary directors and officers liability insurer deposited $5.7 million into a settlement fund for payment to class members, plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs of administering the settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. On June 22, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order dismissing the class action lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement and dismissal became final on July 22, 2011.

On February 22, 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against the Company as nominal defendant and against certain of its current or former officers and certain current directors. The lawsuit was filed by Paul Pashcetto in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment between November 5, 2006 and February 22, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, an order requiring the Company to implement certain corporate governance reforms, restitution from the defendants and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. Following the filing of motions by both parties and hearings before the Court, on February 22, 2011, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement regarding the shareholder derivative lawsuit. Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Company agreed, among other things, to implement and maintain certain corporate governance additions, modifications and/or formalizations, and its insurer paid plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses of $1.4 million. The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. On April 8, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order dismissing the shareholder derivative lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement and dismissal became final on May 8, 2011.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa. On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and its subsidiary have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved.

On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective, and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved.

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company, and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the Company's franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is prepared to vigorously defend the claims asserted against the Company and its subsidiary. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved.

In addition, the Company is subject to other routine legal proceedings, claims, and litigation in the ordinary course of its business. Defending lawsuits requires significant management attention and financial resources and the outcome of any litigation, including the matters described above, is inherently uncertain. The Company does not, however, currently expect that the costs to resolve these matters individually and in the aggregate will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Other

The Company is subject to on-going federal and state income tax audits and sales tax audits and any unfavorable rulings could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. The Company believes reserves for these matters are adequately provided for in its consolidated financial statements.