Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	7. Commitments and Contingencies Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations Following an inspection during 2010 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, of the work authorization documents of the Company’s restaurant employees in Minnesota, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, or ICE, issued to the Company a Notice of Suspect Documents identifying a large number of employees who, according to ICE and notwithstanding the Company’s review of work authorization documents for each employee at the time they were hired, appeared not to be authorized to work in the U.S. The Company approached each of the named employees to explain ICE’s determination and afforded each employee an opportunity to confirm the validity of their original work eligibility documents, or provide valid work eligibility documents. Employees who were unable to provide valid work eligibility documents were terminated in accordance with the law. In December 2010, the Company was also requested by DHS to provide the work authorization documents of restaurant employees in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and the Company provided the requested documents in January 2011. The Company has subsequently received requests from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for work authorization documents covering all of the Company’s employees since 2007, plus employee lists and other documents concerning work authorization. The Company believes its practices with regard to the work authorization of its employees, including the review and retention of work authorization documents, are in compliance with applicable law. However, the termination of large numbers of employees in a short period of time does disrupt restaurant operations and results in a temporary increase in labor costs as new employees are trained. In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the Company that it is conducting a civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with employee work authorization verification requirements and its related disclosures and statements, and the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia advised the Company that its investigation has broadened to include a parallel criminal and civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with federal securities laws. The Company intends to continue to fully cooperate in the government’s investigations. It is not possible at this time to determine whether the Company will incur, or to reasonably estimate the amount of, any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with these matters. Shareholder Derivative Actions On July 12, 2012, Ralph B. Richey filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters. On September 21, 2012, Joanne Nelson filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer breached their fiduciary duties, caused waste of corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters, as well as in connection with the Company’s alleged failure to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects, and in connection with compensation paid to some of the Company’s officers. On October 4, 2012, Francis Schmitz filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court, making allegations substantially the same as those in the Nelson complaint. Each of these actions purports to state a claim for damages on behalf of the Company, and is based on statements in the Company’s SEC filings and related public disclosures, as well as media reports and Company records, in part regarding the matters described above under “—Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations.” On January 17, 2013, these three shareholder derivative actions were consolidated by the court and have proceeded as a single action. On March 20, 2013, an amended and consolidated complaint for the cases was filed by plaintiff Saleem Mohammed. On May 22, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases, and a ruling on the motion remains pending. The Company has agreed to a proposed settlement of the consolidated cases, the terms of which are subject to court approval. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Company would pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees which have previously been accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and agree to put in place additional oversight procedures related to employee work authorization compliance. In the event the settlement is not approved, the Company intends to continue to defend the cases vigorously, but it would not be possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases. Miscellaneous The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations

Following an inspection during 2010 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, of the work authorization documents of the Company’s restaurant employees in Minnesota, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, or ICE, issued to the Company a Notice of Suspect Documents identifying a large number of employees who, according to ICE and notwithstanding the Company’s review of work authorization documents for each employee at the time they were hired, appeared not to be authorized to work in the U.S. The Company approached each of the named employees to explain ICE’s determination and afforded each employee an opportunity to confirm the validity of their original work eligibility documents, or provide valid work eligibility documents. Employees who were unable to provide valid work eligibility documents were terminated in accordance with the law. In December 2010, the Company was also requested by DHS to provide the work authorization documents of restaurant employees in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and the Company provided the requested documents in January 2011. The Company has subsequently received requests from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for work authorization documents covering all of the Company’s employees since 2007, plus employee lists and other documents concerning work authorization. The Company believes its practices with regard to the work authorization of its employees, including the review and retention of work authorization documents, are in compliance with applicable law. However, the termination of large numbers of employees in a short period of time does disrupt restaurant operations and results in a temporary increase in labor costs as new employees are trained.

In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the Company that it is conducting a civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with employee work authorization verification requirements and its related disclosures and statements, and the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia advised the Company that its investigation has broadened to include a parallel criminal and civil investigation of the Company’s compliance with federal securities laws. The Company intends to continue to fully cooperate in the government’s investigations. It is not possible at this time to determine whether the Company will incur, or to reasonably estimate the amount of, any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with these matters.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On July 12, 2012, Ralph B. Richey filed a shareholder derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters. On September 21, 2012, Joanne Nelson filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court alleging that the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer breached their fiduciary duties, caused waste of corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched in connection with employee work authorization compliance matters, as well as in connection with the Company’s alleged failure to disclose material information about the Company’s business results and prospects, and in connection with compensation paid to some of the Company’s officers. On October 4, 2012, Francis Schmitz filed a shareholder derivative action in the same court, making allegations substantially the same as those in the Nelson complaint. Each of these actions purports to state a claim for damages on behalf of the Company, and is based on statements in the Company’s SEC filings and related public disclosures, as well as media reports and Company records, in part regarding the matters described above under “—Notices of Inspection of Work Authorization Documents and Related Civil and Criminal Investigations.” On January 17, 2013, these three shareholder derivative actions were consolidated by the court and have proceeded as a single action. On March 20, 2013, an amended and consolidated complaint for the cases was filed by plaintiff Saleem Mohammed. On May 22, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases, and a ruling on the motion remains pending. The Company has agreed to a proposed settlement of the consolidated cases, the terms of which are subject to court approval. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Company would pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees which have previously been accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and agree to put in place additional oversight procedures related to employee work authorization compliance. In the event the settlement is not approved, the Company intends to continue to defend the cases vigorously, but it would not be possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from these cases.

Miscellaneous

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. However, a significant increase in the number of these claims, or one or more successful claims under which the Company incurs greater liabilities than the Company currently anticipates, could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.