Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies (a) Purchase Commitments. The Company will, from time to time, enter into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials and components. Amounts committed under these programs are not significant as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. (b) Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012 Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012 On June 20 and 25, 2012, the above suits were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company’s stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company’s competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company’s 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs sought damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Appeals Court"). Following oral argument, the Appeals Court issued an order on June 4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company. The Plaintiff had until September 2, 2015 to file a petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not file for review, therefore this matter has now been resolved in the Company's favor. (c) Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013 On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court is scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015 and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. (d) German Regulatory Investigation. The German Federal Cartel Office ("FCO") has conducted unannounced inspections of the premises of several mattress wholesaler/manufacturers including the Company's German subsidiary. The order permitting the inspection and collection of records alleged “vertical price fixing”. Representatives of the Company met with the FCO in February 2015 but no resolution was reached. The parties met again in August 2015 and began negotiating a tentative settlement of the issues and claims asserted by the FCO, which was finalized in October 2015, with the Company agreeing to make a €15.5 million payment to resolve all matters between the parties. The Company recognized expense of $17.4 million (€15.5 million),which is presented within other expense (income), net in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015. The Company recorded a corresponding liability for this settlement, which is included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2015. (e) Environmental. The Company is currently conducting an environmental cleanup at a formerly owned facility in South Brunswick, New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. Sealy and one of its subsidiaries are parties to an Administrative Consent Order issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Pursuant to that order, Sealy and its subsidiary agreed to conduct soil and groundwater remediation at the property. The Company does not believe that its manufacturing processes were the source of contamination. The Company sold the property in 1997. The Company retained primary responsibility for the required remediation. Previously, the Company removed and disposed of contaminated soil from the site with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection approval, and the Company has installed a groundwater remediation system on the site. During 2005, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company removed and disposed of sediment in Oakeys Brook adjoining the site. The Company continues to monitor ground water at the site. During 2012, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company commenced the removal and disposal of additional contaminated soil from the site. The Company has recorded a reserve as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 for $2.4 million and $2.5 million, respectively, associated with this remediation project. The Company has also undertaken a remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at an inactive facility located in Oakville, Connecticut. Although the Company is conducting the remediation voluntarily, it obtained Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) approval of the remediation plan. In 2012, the Company submitted separate closure reports to the Connecticut DEEP for the lower portion of the site and the upper portion of the site. The Connecticut DEEP approved the Company’s closure report for the upper portion of the site and also gave conditional approval to the Company’s closure report for the lower portion of the site. The Company is continuing to work with the Connecticut DEEP and is performing additional testing to obtain closure for the lower portion of the site. The Company has recorded a liability in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 for approximately $0.1 million associated with the completion of the closure of its remediation efforts at the site. The Company does not believe the contamination on this site is attributable to the Company’s operations. In 1998, the Company sold an inactive facility located in Putnam, Connecticut. In 2012, the Company received a letter from the attorney for the current owner of that property claiming that the Company may have some responsibility for an environmental condition on the property. The Company continues to investigate this matter, but intends to vigorously defend the claim of the current owner against the Company. The Company cannot predict the ultimate timing or costs of the South Brunswick, Oakville and Putnam environmental matters. Based on facts currently known, the Company believes that the accruals recorded are adequate and does not believe the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on the financial position or future operations of the Company. However, in the event of an adverse decision by the agencies involved, or an unfavorable result in the New Jersey natural resources damages matter, these matters could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. (f) Income Tax Assessments. The Company has received income tax assessments from the Danish Tax Authority (“SKAT”). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the proposed adjustments and plans to oppose the assessments as necessary in the appropriate Danish venue. The Company believes the litigation process to reach a final resolution of this matter could potentially extend over the next five years. If the Company is not successful in defending its position before the Tribunal or in the Danish courts that the Company owes no additional taxes, or if the Company chooses to pursue a settlement with SKAT, the Company could be required to pay a significant amount to SKAT, which could impair or reduce the Company's liquidity and profitability. In addition, the Company could choose to pursue a settlement with SKAT, which could also require the Company to pay significant amounts to SKAT. For a description of these assessments and additional information with respect to these assessments and the various related legal proceedings, see Note 13, "Income Taxes". (g) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.

Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Purchase Commitments. The Company will, from time to time, enter into limited purchase commitments for the purchase of certain raw materials and components. Amounts committed under these programs are not significant as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

(b) Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012

Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012

On June 20 and 25, 2012, the above suits were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company’s stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company’s competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company’s 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs sought damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Appeals Court"). Following oral argument, the Appeals Court issued an order on June 4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company. The Plaintiff had until September 2, 2015 to file a petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not file for review, therefore this matter has now been resolved in the Company's favor.

(c) Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court is scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015 and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company’s applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

(d) German Regulatory Investigation. The German Federal Cartel Office ("FCO") has conducted unannounced inspections of the premises of several mattress wholesaler/manufacturers including the Company's German subsidiary. The order permitting the inspection and collection of records alleged “vertical price fixing”. Representatives of the Company met with the FCO in February 2015 but no resolution was reached. The parties met again in August 2015 and began negotiating a tentative settlement of the issues and claims asserted by the FCO, which was finalized in October 2015, with the Company agreeing to make a €15.5 million payment to resolve all matters between the parties. The Company recognized expense of $17.4 million (€15.5 million),which is presented within other expense (income), net in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015. The Company recorded a corresponding liability for this settlement, which is included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2015.

(e) Environmental. The Company is currently conducting an environmental cleanup at a formerly owned facility in South Brunswick, New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act. Sealy and one of its subsidiaries are parties to an Administrative Consent Order issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Pursuant to that order, Sealy and its subsidiary agreed to conduct soil and groundwater remediation at the property. The Company does not believe that its manufacturing processes were the source of contamination. The Company sold the property in 1997. The Company retained primary responsibility for the required remediation. Previously, the Company removed and disposed of contaminated soil from the site with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection approval, and the Company has installed a groundwater remediation system on the site. During 2005, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company removed and disposed of sediment in Oakeys Brook adjoining the site. The Company continues to monitor ground water at the site. During 2012, with the approval of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Company commenced the removal and disposal of additional contaminated soil from the site. The Company has recorded a reserve as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 for $2.4 million and $2.5 million, respectively, associated with this remediation project.

The Company has also undertaken a remediation of soil and groundwater contamination at an inactive facility located in Oakville, Connecticut. Although the Company is conducting the remediation voluntarily, it obtained Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”) approval of the remediation plan. In 2012, the Company submitted separate closure reports to the Connecticut DEEP for the lower portion of the site and the upper portion of the site. The Connecticut DEEP approved the Company’s closure report for the upper portion of the site and also gave conditional approval to the Company’s closure report for the lower portion of the site. The Company is continuing to work with the Connecticut DEEP and is performing additional testing to obtain closure for the lower portion of the site. The Company has recorded a liability in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 for approximately $0.1 million associated with the completion of the closure of its remediation efforts at the site. The Company does not believe the contamination on this site is attributable to the Company’s operations.

In 1998, the Company sold an inactive facility located in Putnam, Connecticut. In 2012, the Company received a letter from the attorney for the current owner of that property claiming that the Company may have some responsibility for an environmental condition on the property. The Company continues to investigate this matter, but intends to vigorously defend the claim of the current owner against the Company.

The Company cannot predict the ultimate timing or costs of the South Brunswick, Oakville and Putnam environmental matters. Based on facts currently known, the Company believes that the accruals recorded are adequate and does not believe the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on the financial position or future operations of the Company. However, in the event of an adverse decision by the agencies involved, or an unfavorable result in the New Jersey natural resources damages matter, these matters could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

(f) Income Tax Assessments. The Company has received income tax assessments from the Danish Tax Authority (“SKAT”). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the proposed adjustments and plans to oppose the assessments as necessary in the appropriate Danish venue. The Company believes the litigation process to reach a final resolution of this matter could potentially extend over the next five years. If the Company is not successful in defending its position before the Tribunal or in the Danish courts that the Company owes no additional taxes, or if the Company chooses to pursue a settlement with SKAT, the Company could be required to pay a significant amount to SKAT, which could impair or reduce the Company's liquidity and profitability. In addition, the Company could choose to pursue a settlement with SKAT, which could also require the Company to pay significant amounts to SKAT. For a description of these assessments and additional information with respect to these assessments and the various related legal proceedings, see Note 13, "Income Taxes".

(g) Other. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the operations of its business. The Company believes that the outcome of all such pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.