Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 29, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) 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 WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and punitive damages. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss on July 13, 2016, and the parties have engaged in extensive discovery since then. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in May 2017, which WHBM opposed in a brief filed in June 2017. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment to dismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation, (a) whether the action will be permitted to proceed as a class, (b) if a class is certified, the resolution of certain disputed statutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative class and (c) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages. No assurance can be given that these issues will be resolved in the Company’s favor or that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. 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 alleged 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. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the Court issued final approval and entry of judgment on June 5, 2017. The settlement did 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 alleged 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 by the court on July 25, 2017. 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 amounts of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of July 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, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) 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 WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and punitive damages. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss on July 13, 2016, and the parties have engaged in extensive discovery since then. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in May 2017, which WHBM opposed in a brief filed in June 2017. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment to dismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation, (a) whether the action will be permitted to proceed as a class, (b) if a class is certified, the resolution of certain disputed statutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative class and (c) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages. No assurance can be given that these issues will be resolved in the Company’s favor or that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. 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 alleged 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. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the Court issued final approval and entry of judgment on June 5, 2017. The settlement did 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 alleged 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 by the court on July 25, 2017. 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 amounts of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of July 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.