Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 29, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 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. It will continue to vigorously defend the matter. At this time, 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. No specific dollar amount in damages or other relief is specified in the Complaint, and the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. However, if the case were to proceed as a class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. 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. The court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016, and settlement notices were distributed. On May 16, 2017, the court finally approved the settlement substantially on the terms submitted by the parties. The settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In July 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. Following voluntary mediation of the matter in November of 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved preliminarily by the court on March 28, 2017. If finally approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. 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 April 29, 2017 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 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. It will continue to vigorously defend the matter. At this time, 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. No specific dollar amount in damages or other relief is specified in the Complaint, and the Company is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss. However, if the case were to proceed as a class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

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. The court granted preliminary approval on August 26, 2016, and settlement notices were distributed. On May 16, 2017, the court finally approved the settlement substantially on the terms submitted by the parties. The settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In July 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. Following voluntary mediation of the matter in November of 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved preliminarily by the court on March 28, 2017. If finally approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

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 April 29, 2017 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.