(1999) (emphasis added). Courts generally agree that “an entity ‘suffers or permits’ an individual to work if, as a matter of ‘economic reality,’ the entity functions as the individual’s employer.” Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 66 (2d Cir.2003); see also Johnson v. The Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County, 371 F.3d 723, 729 (10th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court specifically has observed that this broad definition of employ “whose striking breadth we have previously noted, stretches the meaning of ‘employee’ to cover some parties who might not qualify as such under such a strict application of traditional agency principles.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 503 U.S. at 326, 112 S.Ct. 1344; see also Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190, 195-96, 94 S.Ct. 427, 38 L.Ed.2d 406 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Greenberg v. Arsenal Bldg. Corp., 144 F.2d
holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that maintenance workers were employees of not only the apartment building owners but also the real estate management company holding the real estate sale proceeds