2.4.0.81090 - Disclosure - LEGAL PROCEEDINGStruefalsefalse1false falsefalseD-Jul1_2012-Jun30_2013http://www.sec.gov/CIK0000878726duration2012-07-01T00:00:002013-06-30T00:00:001true 1tues_LegalMattersAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstracttues_falsenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringfalse0LEGAL PROCEEDINGS2false 2us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlockus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterseLabel1falsefalsefalse00 <div> (9) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS   On May 13, 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in the following lawsuit, Kathleen Mason v. Tuesday Morning Corporation d/b/a Delaware TMC Corporation, filed in Country Court in Dallas County, Texas, cause number CC-13-02863-E (subsequently refiled as cause number CC-13-03372-A).    The plaintiff is the former CEO of the Company and her employment was terminated in June 2012.  In the petition, the plaintiff alleges disability discrimination, deliberate indifference and retaliation in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.  Each claim stems from the plaintiff’s allegation that the Company regarded the plaintiff as having a disability (cancer) and fired her because of her disability.  The Plaintiff seeks more than $1 million in monetary relief, including claims for compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.  The Company denies the allegations.  The Company filed a Special Exception and Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition on July 12, 2013.  The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of litigation.  The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter.   The Company is defending against a class action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on December 5, 2008 – Julia Randell, et. al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298 (Cal. Super. Ct.) –  in which the original complaint alleged violations of California’s meal and rest period laws.  The named plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Company, subsequently amended the complaint three times.  Narrowing their class allegations, the two named plaintiffs moved on March 14, 2012 to certify a class on the issue of whether the Company’s alleged practice of providing “on-duty” meal periods to Senior Sales Associates violates the California Labor Code.  The Court granted that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class comprised of current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked for the Company in California, and who were required to take meal breaks “on duty” at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present.  The Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29, 2013.  Discovery is continuing and trial has been set for December 3, 2013.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. </div> falsefalsefalsenonnum:textBlockItemTypenaThe entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies.No definition available.false0LEGAL PROCEEDINGSfalseLEGAL PROCEEDINGSUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnowntruefalsefalseSheethttp://www.tuesdaymorning.com/role/DisclosureLegalProceedings12