From: "Lee Kent Hempfling"
To:
Subject: Fw: the most important part
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:53:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_6226_01C3422F.5D57B0F0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Disposition-Notification-To: "Lee Kent Hempfling"
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_6226_01C3422F.5D57B0F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Lee Kent Hempfling=20
To: BILLY SANDERS=20
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: the most important part

2. The Court noted that an individual who was on the payroll, but =
who was not an "employee" under traditional agency principles, would not =
be counted. Id. at 666. The converse is also true. An individual who =
has two joint employers would be counted as an employee of both =
employers even though the employee may be on the payroll of only one. =
See EEOC Enforcement Guidance No: N-915, "Concepts of Integrated =
Enterprise and Joint Employer," May 6, 1987.
------=_NextPart_000_6226_01C3422F.5D57B0F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

charset=3Diso-8859-1">

2px"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>

----- Original Message -----=20

From: title=3Dlkh@knology.net href=3D"mailto:lkh@knology.net">Lee Kent =
Hempfling=20

To: href=3D"mailto:BILLY.SANDERS@EEOC.GOV">BILLY SANDERS

Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:53 AM

Subject: the most important part

24pt">size=3D2>2.yes">     The Court noted that an individual =

who was on the payroll,

style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">but who was not an "employee" under traditional agency =

24pt">size=3D2>principles, would not be =

counted.  Id. at 666.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  The converse is =

24pt">size=3D2>also true.style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">  An individual who has two =

joint employers would be

style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 12pt 0pt 24pt">style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN">Unicode MS">counted as an employee of both employers even though the =

employee

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>may be on the payroll of only =

one.  See EEOC Enforcement =

Guidance

12pt 0pt 24pt">size=3D2>No: N-915, "Concepts of =

Integrated Enterprise and Joint =

24pt">size=3D2>Employer," May 6, =

1987.

24pt">size=3D2>MS">

24pt">size=3D2>MS">

L>

------=_NextPart_000_6226_01C3422F.5D57B0F0--