CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL MATTERS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL MATTERS	CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL MATTERS From time to time the Company is involved in various legal and administrative proceedings that are incidental to its business, including claims related to product liability, general negligence, contract disputes, environmental issues, wage and hour laws, intellectual property, employment practices, regulatory compliance or other matters and actions brought by employees, consumers, competitors, suppliers or governmental entities. As a government contractor selling to federal, state and local governmental entities, the Company is also subject to governmental or regulatory inquiries or audits or other proceedings, including those related to pricing compliance. It is not expected that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. TCPA Matter On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of all those who received faxes in connection with a 2009 marketing campaign. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the “TCPA”), by sending fax advertisements that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each non-compliant individual fax. On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “District Court”). On June 27, 2014, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for a determination that the court should not certify a class, finding that Davies was not an adequate class representative. On October 2, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies’ petition for immediate review of the June 27, 2014 ruling. Davies may seek to pursue an appeal of the June 27, 2014 ruling at the conclusion of the District Court proceedings. The Company subsequently moved to dismiss Davies’ individual claims based on the position that he had suffered no injury relating to his notice-related claims on account of the single fax he received, or otherwise. On April 4, 2016, the District Court issued an opinion denying the Company’s motion. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and are in the process of completing briefing on their motions. We believe we have strong legal and factual defenses and intend to continue defending the Company vigorously in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL MATTERS

From time to time the Company is involved in various legal and administrative proceedings that are incidental to its business, including claims related to product liability, general negligence, contract disputes, environmental issues, wage and hour laws, intellectual property, employment practices, regulatory compliance or other matters and actions brought by employees, consumers, competitors, suppliers or governmental entities. As a government contractor selling to federal, state and local governmental entities, the Company is also subject to governmental or regulatory inquiries or audits or other proceedings, including those related to pricing compliance. It is not expected that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations.

TCPA Matter

On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of all those who received faxes in connection with a 2009 marketing campaign. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the “TCPA”), by sending fax advertisements that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each non-compliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “District Court”). On June 27, 2014, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for a determination that the court should not certify a class, finding that Davies was not an adequate class representative. On October 2, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies’ petition for immediate review of the June 27, 2014 ruling. Davies may seek to pursue an appeal of the June 27, 2014 ruling at the conclusion of the District Court proceedings.

The Company subsequently moved to dismiss Davies’ individual claims based on the position that he had suffered no injury relating to his notice-related claims on account of the single fax he received, or otherwise. On April 4, 2016, the District Court issued an opinion denying the Company’s motion.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and are in the process of completing briefing on their motions.

We believe we have strong legal and factual defenses and intend to continue defending the Company vigorously in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.