affairs of the corporation, see Hyland, 794 F.2d at 797-98, we reject the notion that labels can conclusively resolve status inquiries. We hold instead that the Title VII question cannot be decided solely on the basis that a partnership calls — or declines to call — a person a partner. A court must peer beneath the label and probe the actual circumstances of the person’s relationship with the partnership. See Devine, 100 F.3d at 80-81; Fountain, 925 F.2d at 1400-01; see also Hishon, 467 U.S. at 79 n. 2, 104 S.Ct. at 2236 n. 2 (Powell, J., concurring) (“Of course, an employer may not evade the strictures of Title VII simply by labelling its employees as ‘partners.’ ”); see generally Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 198 U.S. 424, 437-38, 25 S.Ct. 740, 743-44, 49 L.Ed. 1111 (1905) (<HOLDING>). In other words, partnerships cannot exclude
holding that where the parties fail to reach an agreement as to the character nature or type of release to be used an essential element of the agreement is not established holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties holding that the manner in which the parties to an agreement designate their relationship is not controlling