Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  571 U. S. ____ (2014) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

human  body;  dress;  vestments;  vesture”);  see  also,  e.g.,  2 
Oxford  English  Dictionary  524  (1933)  (defining  “clothes” 
as  “[c]overing  for  the  person;  wearing  apparel;  dress, 
raiment, vesture”).  That is what we hold to be the mean-
ing  of  the  word  as  used  in  §203(o).  Although  a  statute
may  make  “a  departure  from  the  natural  and  popular 
acceptation of language,” Greenleaf v. Goodrich, 101 U. S. 
278, 284–285 (1880) (citing Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 How. 
251  (1854)),  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  of  §203(o)  sug-
gests  anything  other  than  the  ordinary  meaning  of
“clothes.” 

Petitioners argue that the word “clothes” is too indeter-
minate  to  be  ascribed  any  general  meaning  but  that, 
whatever  it  includes,  it  necessarily  excludes  items  de-
signed  and  used  to  protect  against  workplace  hazards.
That  position  creates  a  distinction  between  “protection,”
on the one hand, and “decency or comfort,” on the other—a 
distinction  that  petitioners  appear  to  have  derived  from
Webster’s  Second,  which  elaborates  that  “clothes”  is  “a 
general term for whatever covering is worn, or is made to
be  worn,  for  decency  or  comfort.”  Webster’s  Second  507 
(emphasis  added).    But  that  definition  does  not  exclude, 
either  explicitly  or  implicitly,  items  with  a  protective 
function,  since  “protection”  and  “comfort”  are  not  incom-
patible,  and  are  often  synonymous.    A  parasol  protects
against the sun, enhancing the comfort of the bearer—just 
as  work  gloves  protect  against  scrapes  and  cuts,  enhanc-
ing  the  comfort  of  the  wearer.    Petitioners  further  assert 
that  protective  items  of  apparel  are  referred  to  as  “cloth-
ing”  rather  than  “clothes.”  They  point  out  that,  when
introduced  by  the  adjective  “protective,”  the  noun  “cloth-
ing”  is  used  more  commonly  than  “clothes.”  That  is  true 
enough,  but  it  seems  to  us  explained  by  euphonic  prefer-
ence  rather  than  difference  in  meaning.  We  see  no  basis 
for  the  proposition  that  the  unmodified  term  “clothes”
somehow omits protective clothing.