Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies (a) 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 was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court is now scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2016. The outcome of this case remains 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 financial position or results of operations. (b) 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 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 does not believe this matter is material to the Company's financial statements. 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 does not believe the contamination on this site is attributable to the Company’s operations, or that it will have a material effect on the Company's financial statements. 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 financial position or results of operations. (c) Income Tax Assessments. We have received income tax assessments from the Danish Tax Authority ("SKAT") with respect to the tax years 2001 through 2008 relating to the royalty paid by certain of Tempur Sealy International’s U.S. subsidiaries to a Danish subsidiary. For more information please refer to Note 9, “Income Taxes”, in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. (d) 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) 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 was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court is now scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2016. The outcome of this case remains 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 financial position or results of operations.

(b) 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 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 does not believe this matter is material to the Company's financial statements.

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 does not believe the contamination on this site is attributable to the Company’s operations, or that it will have a material effect on the Company's financial statements.

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 financial position or results of operations.

(c) Income Tax Assessments. We have received income tax assessments from the Danish Tax Authority ("SKAT") with respect to the tax years 2001 through 2008 relating to the royalty paid by certain of Tempur Sealy International’s U.S. subsidiaries to a Danish subsidiary. For more information please refer to Note 9, “Income Taxes”, in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

(d) 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.