Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 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 years 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 during 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. Subsequent to the filing of the Company's appeal of the pre-assessment notice, the review committee instructed the customs officials to reconsider their assertion of the alternative duty method and conduct a re-audit to evaluate the facts and circumstances noted in the pre-assessment notice. If the Company is unsuccessful in its 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 September 13, 2005, Wathne Imports, Ltd. ("Wathne"), the Company's former domestic licensee for luggage and handbags, filed suit against the Company and Mr. Ralph Lauren, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York alleging, among other things, that the Company breached a 1999 License Agreement and Design Services Agreement with Wathne and had engaged in deceptive trade practices, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint originally sought, among other things, injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $250 million, and punitive damages in excess of $750 million. The Court partially granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed five out of Wathne's six causes of action. The Court also denied Wathne's two motions for a preliminary injunction against the production and sale of certain handbags. On April 11, 2008, the Court partially granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed most of the remaining claims. Wathne appealed and on June 9, 2009, the Appellate Division largely affirmed. As a result, Wathne's principal remaining claims are that the Company violated the License Agreement by discontinuing the Polo Sport trademark on handbags without providing a replacement mark, that it usurped Wathne's right to manufacture and sell certain high-end handbags under the Ralph Lauren trademark, and that it deceived Wathne into giving up its right to manufacture and sell certain children's backpacks. Wathne filed a note of issue on April 21, 2011, certifying that the case was ready for trial. Wathne has since sought to expand the factual issues in dispute and raise other complaints. The Company has thus far succeeded in court in defeating those efforts. The Company also filed several pre-trial motions to exclude various parts of Wathne's damages evidence. Currently pending is an appeal of the trial Court's decision to prevent Wathne's CEO from testifying about her alleged lost profits related to the Ralph Lauren trademark. On January 7, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike Wathne's jury demand. Pending any appeal by Wathne, this case will now be tried by a judge and the parties have a pre-trial conference scheduled. No trial date has been set and the Company will continue to vigorously contest the remaining claims and dispute any alleged damages. 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 years 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 during 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. Subsequent to the filing of the Company's appeal of the pre-assessment notice, the review committee instructed the customs officials to reconsider their assertion of the alternative duty method and conduct a re-audit to evaluate the facts and circumstances noted in the pre-assessment notice. If the Company is unsuccessful in its 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 September 13, 2005, Wathne Imports, Ltd. ("Wathne"), the Company's former domestic licensee for luggage and handbags, filed suit against the Company and Mr. Ralph Lauren, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York alleging, among other things, that the Company breached a 1999 License Agreement and Design Services Agreement with Wathne and had engaged in deceptive trade practices, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint originally sought, among other things, injunctive relief, compensatory damages in excess of $250 million, and punitive damages in excess of $750 million. The Court partially granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed five out of Wathne's six causes of action. The Court also denied Wathne's two motions for a preliminary injunction against the production and sale of certain handbags. On April 11, 2008, the Court partially granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed most of the remaining claims. Wathne appealed and on June 9, 2009, the Appellate Division largely affirmed. As a result, Wathne's principal remaining claims are that the Company violated the License Agreement by discontinuing the Polo Sport trademark on handbags without providing a replacement mark, that it usurped Wathne's right to manufacture and sell certain high-end handbags under the Ralph Lauren trademark, and that it deceived Wathne into giving up its right to manufacture and sell certain children's backpacks.

Wathne filed a note of issue on April 21, 2011, certifying that the case was ready for trial. Wathne has since sought to expand the factual issues in dispute and raise other complaints. The Company has thus far succeeded in court in defeating those efforts. The Company also filed several pre-trial motions to exclude various parts of Wathne's damages evidence. Currently pending is an appeal of the trial Court's decision to prevent Wathne's CEO from testifying about her alleged lost profits related to the Ralph Lauren trademark.

On January 7, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike Wathne's jury demand. Pending any appeal by Wathne, this case will now be tried by a judge and the parties have a pre-trial conference scheduled. No trial date has been set and the Company will continue to vigorously contest the remaining claims and dispute any alleged damages. 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.