Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Obligations During the first quarter of Fiscal 2015, the Company entered into a lease for a new domestic distribution facility in North Carolina to support its future business growth. The initial lease term is approximately 15 years, with optional renewal periods and a purchase option. The Company's total commitment relating to this lease is approximately $56 million, with minimum lease payments of approximately $2 million due in the Company's fiscal year 2016, $3 million due each year from the Company's fiscal year 2017 through 2019, and aggregate minimum lease payments of $45 million for the Company's fiscal years 2020 through 2031. The Company expects to take possession of this property in the second quarter of its fiscal year 2016. Customs Audit In September 2014, one of the Company's international subsidiaries received a pre-assessment notice from the relevant customs officials concerning the method used to determine the dutiable value of imported inventory. The notice communicated the customs officials' assertion that the Company should have applied an alternative duty method, which could result in up to approximately $46 million in incremental duty and non-creditable value-added tax, including approximately $11 million in interest and penalties. The Company believes that the alternative duty method claimed by the customs officials is not applicable to the Company's facts and circumstances and is vigorously contesting their asserted methodology. In October 2014, the Company filed an appeal of the pre-assessment notice in accordance with the standard procedures established by the relevant customs authorities. The customs officials have 30 to 90 days to respond with either an adjustment to the pre-assessment notice or the issuance of an assessment and tax payment notice. Once the assessment is issued, the Company would be required to remit the full assessed amount to preserve its legal rights in appealing the notice, as well as to eliminate any future interest and penalties. If the Company prevails in its appeals, all amounts required to be deposited would be fully recoverable, including interest. If the Company is unsuccessful in its initial appeals, it may further appeal this decision within the Courts. At this time, while the Company believes that the customs officials’ claims are not meritorious and that the Company will ultimately prevail, the outcome of the appeals process and potential court proceedings is subject to risk and uncertainty and the ultimate resolution of this examination in favor of the customs authority could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Wathne Imports Litigation On August 19, 2005, Wathne Imports, Ltd. ("Wathne"), the Company's then domestic licensee for luggage and handbags, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York against the Company and Mr. Ralph Lauren, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, asserting, among other things, federal trademark law violations, breach of contract, breach of obligations of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint originally sought, among other relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $250 million, and punitive damages of not less than $750 million. On September 13, 2005, Wathne withdrew this complaint from the U.S. District Court and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, making substantially the same allegations and claims (excluding the federal trademark claims), and seeking similar relief. On February 1, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the causes of action, including the cause of action against Mr. Lauren, except for breach of contract related claims, and denied Wathne's motion for a preliminary injunction. Following some discovery, the Company moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims and Wathne cross-moved for partial summary judgment. In an April 11, 2008 Decision and Order, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motion to dismiss most of the claims against the Company, and denied Wathne's cross-motion for summary judgment. Wathne appealed the dismissal of its claims to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Following a hearing on May 19, 2009, the Appellate Division issued a Decision and Order on June 9, 2009 which, in large part, affirmed the lower Court's ruling. Since then, Wathne has made various attempts to expand the scope of its claim and the damages sought by making various motions and pursuing several intermediate appeals. At this time, Wathne's principal remaining claim is that the Company required Wathne to discontinue the use of the Polo Sport brand on handbags in violation of its contract. A trial date has not been scheduled and the Company intends to continue to contest the remaining claims and dispute any alleged damages in this lawsuit vigorously. Management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. Other Matters The Company is otherwise involved, from time to time, in litigation, other legal claims, and proceedings involving matters associated with or incidental to its business, including, among other things, matters involving credit card fraud, trademark and other intellectual property, licensing, importation and exportation of its products, taxation, unclaimed property, and employee relations. The Company believes at present that the resolution of currently pending matters, other than those separately discussed above, will not individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, the Company's assessment of the current litigation or other legal claims could potentially change in light of the discovery of facts not presently known or determinations by judges, juries, or other finders of fact which are not in accord with management's evaluation of the possible liability or outcome of such litigation or claims. In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements that provide general indemnifications. The Company has not made any significant indemnification payments under such agreements in the past, and does not currently anticipate incurring any material indemnification payments.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Obligations

During the first quarter of Fiscal 2015, the Company entered into a lease for a new domestic distribution facility in North Carolina to support its future business growth. The initial lease term is approximately 15 years, with optional renewal periods and a purchase option. The Company's total commitment relating to this lease is approximately $56 million, with minimum lease payments of approximately $2 million due in the Company's fiscal year 2016, $3 million due each year from the Company's fiscal year 2017 through 2019, and aggregate minimum lease payments of $45 million for the Company's fiscal years 2020 through 2031. The Company expects to take possession of this property in the second quarter of its fiscal year 2016.

Customs Audit

In September 2014, one of the Company's international subsidiaries received a pre-assessment notice from the relevant customs officials concerning the method used to determine the dutiable value of imported inventory. The notice communicated the customs officials' assertion that the Company should have applied an alternative duty method, which could result in up to approximately $46 million in incremental duty and non-creditable value-added tax, including approximately $11 million in interest and penalties. The Company believes that the alternative duty method claimed by the customs officials is not applicable to the Company's facts and circumstances and is vigorously contesting their asserted methodology.

In October 2014, the Company filed an appeal of the pre-assessment notice in accordance with the standard procedures established by the relevant customs authorities. The customs officials have 30 to 90 days to respond with either an adjustment to the pre-assessment notice or the issuance of an assessment and tax payment notice. Once the assessment is issued, the Company would be required to remit the full assessed amount to preserve its legal rights in appealing the notice, as well as to eliminate any future interest and penalties. If the Company prevails in its appeals, all amounts required to be deposited would be fully recoverable, including interest. If the Company is unsuccessful in its initial appeals, it may further appeal this decision within the Courts. At this time, while the Company believes that the customs officials’ claims are not meritorious and that the Company will ultimately prevail, the outcome of the appeals process and potential court proceedings is subject to risk and uncertainty and the ultimate resolution of this examination in favor of the customs authority could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Wathne Imports Litigation

On August 19, 2005, Wathne Imports, Ltd. ("Wathne"), the Company's then domestic licensee for luggage and handbags, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York against the Company and Mr. Ralph Lauren, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, asserting, among other things, federal trademark law violations, breach of contract, breach of obligations of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint originally sought, among other relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $250 million, and punitive damages of not less than $750 million. On September 13, 2005, Wathne withdrew this complaint from the U.S. District Court and filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, making substantially the same allegations and claims (excluding the federal trademark claims), and seeking similar relief. On February 1, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the causes of action, including the cause of action against Mr. Lauren, except for breach of contract related claims, and denied Wathne's motion for a preliminary injunction. Following some discovery, the Company moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims and Wathne cross-moved for partial summary judgment. In an April 11, 2008 Decision and Order, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motion to dismiss most of the claims against the Company, and denied Wathne's cross-motion for summary judgment. Wathne appealed the dismissal of its claims to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Following a hearing on May 19, 2009, the Appellate Division issued a Decision and Order on June 9, 2009 which, in large part, affirmed the lower Court's ruling. Since then, Wathne has made various attempts to expand the scope of its claim and the damages sought by making various motions and pursuing several intermediate appeals.

At this time, Wathne's principal remaining claim is that the Company required Wathne to discontinue the use of the Polo Sport brand on handbags in violation of its contract. A trial date has not been scheduled and the Company intends to continue to contest the remaining claims and dispute any alleged damages in this lawsuit vigorously. Management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Other Matters

The Company is otherwise involved, from time to time, in litigation, other legal claims, and proceedings involving matters associated with or incidental to its business, including, among other things, matters involving credit card fraud, trademark and other intellectual property, licensing, importation and exportation of its products, taxation, unclaimed property, and employee relations. The Company believes at present that the resolution of currently pending matters, other than those separately discussed above, will not individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, the Company's assessment of the current litigation or other legal claims could potentially change in light of the discovery of facts not presently known or determinations by judges, juries, or other finders of fact which are not in accord with management's evaluation of the possible liability or outcome of such litigation or claims.

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements that provide general indemnifications. The Company has not made any significant indemnification payments under such agreements in the past, and does not currently anticipate incurring any material indemnification payments.