Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 25, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Obligations As of September 25, 2012, the Company guaranteed operating leases of 25 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, 2012 to September 30, 2027 and a potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $24.2 million as of September 25, 2012. The obligations under these leases will 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 or affiliate'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 December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread 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 alleged, 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 Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief, 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. On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed by David Carter, which is described in the subsequent paragraph. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the parties have agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were preliminarily approved by the Court on June 8, 2012. The aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million is included in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 25, 2012 and December 27, 2011. On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread 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 alleged, 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 Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, 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. This matter was consolidated with the lawsuit described in the immediately preceding paragraph and is the subject of the Memorandum of Agreement described above. On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint sought, 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. On February 29, 2012, the parties agreed to settle this matter for an amount up to an aggregate of $1.5 million for settlement payments to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The agreement includes no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were approved by the Court on June 26, 2012, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement amount of $1.5 million was paid into a settlement fund on July 6, 2012. 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 believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements. Other The Company is subject to on-going federal and state income tax audits and sales tax audits. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these audits, or one or more successful audits under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Obligations

As of September 25, 2012, the Company guaranteed operating leases of 25 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, 2012 to September 30, 2027 and a potential amount of future rental payments of approximately $24.2 million as of September 25, 2012. The obligations under these leases will 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 or affiliate'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 December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread 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 alleged, 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 Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other relief, 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. On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed by David Carter, which is described in the subsequent paragraph. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the parties have agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were preliminarily approved by the Court on June 8, 2012. The aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million is included in accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 25, 2012 and December 27, 2011.

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread 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 alleged, 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 Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, 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. This matter was consolidated with the lawsuit described in the immediately preceding paragraph and is the subject of the Memorandum of Agreement described above.

On December 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Denarius Lewis, Caroll Ruiz, and Corey Weiner, former employees of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint sought, 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. On February 29, 2012, the parties agreed to settle this matter for an amount up to an aggregate of $1.5 million for settlement payments to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and costs of administering the settlement. The agreement includes no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were approved by the Court on June 26, 2012, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement amount of $1.5 million was paid into a settlement fund on July 6, 2012.

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 believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements.

Other

The Company is subject to on-going federal and state income tax audits and sales tax audits. The Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, a significant increase in the number of these audits, or one or more successful audits under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than is currently anticipated, could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial statements.