Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES On October 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by two California former hourly employees. The complaint sought unspecified damages for alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as civil penalties and attorney’s fees under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The complaint alleged that the Company miscalculated and failed to pay overtime for employees off-the-clock work and certain selling incentive bonuses (or spiffs), issued inaccurate wage statements, failed to provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor-related complaints. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on a number of the asserted claims, including the rest and meal break allegations, but certified the spiff miscalculation class and the derivative wage statement and former employee classes. On October 10, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asserting that the District Court erred in certifying the various classes. The Company's appeal remains pending. Additionally, on October 8, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorney’s fees, alleging the Company's failure to pay overtime to hourly store employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously, and the outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time. The Company is also party to various other legal and administrative proceedings, claims, product recalls, litigation and regulatory compliance audits arising from normal business activities. Additionally, many of these proceedings and audits raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. The Company cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these matters. Accordingly, material adverse developments, settlements, or resolutions may occur and negatively impact results in the quarter and/or fiscal year in which such developments, settlements, or resolutions are reached. For any claims, legal or administrative proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is probable, there is no material difference between the amount accrued and the reasonably possible amount of loss. For any such matters where a loss is reasonably possible, the range of estimated loss is not material, individually and in the aggregate.

Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 27, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

On October 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by two California former hourly employees. The complaint sought unspecified damages for alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as civil penalties and attorney’s fees under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The complaint alleged that the Company miscalculated and failed to pay overtime for employees off-the-clock work and certain selling incentive bonuses (or spiffs), issued inaccurate wage statements, failed to provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor-related complaints. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on a number of the asserted claims, including the rest and meal break allegations, but certified the spiff miscalculation class and the derivative wage statement and former employee classes. On October 10, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asserting that the District Court erred in certifying the various classes. The Company's appeal remains pending.

Additionally, on October 8, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorney’s fees, alleging the Company's failure to pay overtime to hourly store employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment.

The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously, and the outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time.

The Company is also party to various other legal and administrative proceedings, claims, product recalls, litigation and regulatory compliance audits arising from normal business activities. Additionally, many of these proceedings and audits raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties. The Company cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these matters. Accordingly, material adverse developments, settlements, or resolutions may occur and negatively impact results in the quarter and/or fiscal year in which such developments, settlements, or resolutions are reached.

For any claims, legal or administrative proceedings where the Company has determined that a loss is probable, there is no material difference between the amount accrued and the reasonably possible amount of loss. For any such matters where a loss is reasonably possible, the range of estimated loss is not material, individually and in the aggregate.