Makarova v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
201 F.3d 110 (2000)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Natalia Makarova (plaintiff), a world-renowned ballerina, entered a contract for her services with the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The contract required Makarova to perform a part in a musical and included specifications as to Makarova’s rehearsal and performance schedule, hairstyle, and attire. The Kennedy Center was part of the Smithsonian Institution, which was owned by the United States government (defendant). Although the Kennedy Center was located in Washington, D.C., the contract included a choice-of-law provision for the laws of New York. Under Washington, D.C., law, an employee was defined as any person in the service of another under a contract. Under New York law, employee status was determined by the extent to which control was exercised by the employer. Makarova was injured by a falling piece of scenery during a performance of the musical. Makarova brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court ruled that Makarova was an employee of the Kennedy Center and that the Washington, D.C., workers’ compensation statute was her sole recourse. Makarova appealed, arguing that she was not classifiable as an employee under New York or Washington, D.C., law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
