Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016. If finally approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In March 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Soma Intimates in California. The Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. The court has stayed the Cunningham case pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement in light of the fact that Ackerman was first filed and likely covers all of the claims that are alleged in Cunningham. As a result, at this time, the Company does not expect that the Cunningham case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Chico’s stores in California. The Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. The court has stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement for the same reasons described in the Cunningham case discussion above. As a result, at this time, the Company does not expect that the Rodems case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not appropriate for class treatment. It intends to vigorously defend the matter. At this time however, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is still in the early stages and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. The Company is reviewing the factual allegations in the Complaint and is not yet able to ascertain the merit or the value of the claims asserted. On initial review, the Company believes that the matter is not appropriate for class treatment; however, it is not possible to predict whether it will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is in the very early stage and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. Other than as noted above, we are not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. All such matters are subject to uncertainties and outcomes may not be predictable. Consequently, the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of July 30, 2016 are not estimable. However, while such matters could affect our consolidated operating results when resolved in future periods, management believes that upon final disposition, any monetary liability or financial impact to us would not be material to our annual consolidated financial statements.

Commitments and Contingencies

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016. If finally approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In March 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Cunningham v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Soma Intimates in California. The Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. The court has stayed the Cunningham case pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement in light of the fact that Ackerman was first filed and likely covers all of the claims that are alleged in Cunningham. As a result, at this time, the Company does not expect that the Cunningham case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiff seeks to represent current and former nonexempt employees of Chico’s stores in California. The Complaint alleges many of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman, described above. The court has stayed the matter pending final approval of the Ackerman settlement for the same reasons described in the Cunningham case discussion above. As a result, at this time, the Company does not expect that the Rodems case will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not appropriate for class treatment. It intends to vigorously defend the matter. At this time however, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is still in the early stages and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss.

On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. The Company is reviewing the factual allegations in the Complaint and is not yet able to ascertain the merit or the value of the claims asserted. On initial review, the Company believes that the matter is not appropriate for class treatment; however, it is not possible to predict whether it will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. Because the case is in the very early stage and class determinations have not been made, the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss.

Other than as noted above, we are not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. All such matters are subject to uncertainties and outcomes may not be predictable. Consequently, the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of July 30, 2016 are not estimable. However, while such matters could affect our consolidated operating results when resolved in future periods, management believes that upon final disposition, any monetary liability or financial impact to us would not be material to our annual consolidated financial statements.