Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
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 considered class certification motions on August 18, 2016, and on September 30, 2016, denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Company filed a Motion to Sever the Claims made by each of the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2017 following the denial of class certification by the District Court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the denial of class certification on April 12, 2017. The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and requested briefs from the parties on whether the prior Order denying class certification should be modified. As a result, the outcome of the case remains unclear, and 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) David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017. On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its then existing and future financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The case is in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. 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. (c) Mattress Firm, Inc. v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC and Sealy Mattress Company, filed March 30, 2017. On March 30, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur-Pedic and Sealy Mattress (two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by Mattress Firm. The complaint alleges breach of contract, tortious interference and seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of its agreements with the Company. On April 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiaries named above filed suit against Mattress Firm, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, and breach of contract and other state law violations. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm violated the parties' transition agreements dated January 30, 2017, and consequently, federal and state law, by its use of the Company’s trademarks after April 3, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the complaint was amended to add a claim by Sealy Mattress for nonpayment by Mattress Firm for products sold and delivered. The Company does not believe the claims asserted by Mattress Firm have merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome remains unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. (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 other 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 considered class certification motions on August 18, 2016, and on September 30, 2016, denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In December 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Company filed a Motion to Sever the Claims made by each of the Plaintiffs on March 22, 2017 following the denial of class certification by the District Court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the denial of class certification on April 12, 2017. The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and requested briefs from the parties on whether the prior Order denying class certification should be modified. As a result, the outcome of the case remains unclear, and 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) David Buehring, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Scott L. Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen, filed March 24, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International, Inc., and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased Tempur Sealy common stock between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its then existing and future financial prospects, including those with one of its retailers, Mattress Firm, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company does not believe the claims have merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The case is in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome of the case is unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. 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.

On March 30, 2017, a suit was filed against Tempur-Pedic and Sealy Mattress (two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas by Mattress Firm. The complaint alleges breach of contract, tortious interference and seeks a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of its agreements with the Company. On April 7, 2017, the Company's subsidiaries named above filed suit against Mattress Firm, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division seeking injunctive relief and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, and breach of contract and other state law violations. The complaint alleges that Mattress Firm violated the parties' transition agreements dated January 30, 2017, and consequently, federal and state law, by its use of the Company’s trademarks after April 3, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the complaint was amended to add a claim by Sealy Mattress for nonpayment by Mattress Firm for products sold and delivered. The Company does not believe the claims asserted by Mattress Firm have merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The cases are in the early stages of litigation. As a result, the outcome remains unclear and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

(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 other pending legal proceedings in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity, or operating results.