and the Trust are, and have always been, identical. Finally, David Smith plays a central role both in this litigation and, more importantly here, in the financial affairs of Lynn Smith and the Trust as a whole. Balancing these factors, it is clear that neither Lynn Smith nor the Trust controlled David Smith for purposes of this analysis. Nevertheless, given the nature of the relationships, the complete identity of interests, and David Smith’s role both in this litigation and as to Lynn Smith and the Trust, the absence of significant control over David Smith is far outweighed by the other factors. Accordingly, any adverse inferences which can be drawn from David Smith’s invocation of his privilege should be applied against Lynn Smith and the Trust. The question then 8-59 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Daniels v. Pipefitters’ Ass’n Local Union No.
holding that adverse inferences are permissive not mandatory holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that predecessor statute to section 4h provides for permissive venue holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention holding that termination is an adverse employment action